On air: Does every country have the right to be nuclear?

No, would be the American government’s short answer. It’s accusing Syria of building a secret nuclear reactor with North Korean help. And of course, America is no more enthusiastic about the idea of North Korea itself and Iran doing the same thing. But this isn’t an American issue… The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is signed by 189 countries. Which suggests most of us would answer no to this question. Am I right?

Meantime, we have a parallel debate about nuclear debate. Last year forty-five African states demanded their right to develop nuclear power.

Why should some countries be allowed nuclear power and/or energy while others are not? Or is the only fair thing to do here, either to stop every country from being nuclear, or let everyone do it?

187 Responses to “On air: Does every country have the right to be nuclear?”

  1. April 25, 2008 at 14:36

    Why should some countries be allowed nuclear power and/or energy while others are not?

    Responsibility. Countries which the ‘leaders of the game’ feel can exercise it are allowed in to play. The rest are made to sit on the sidelines with threats that if they step onto the field they will be severely punished.

    Or is the only fair thing to do here, either to stop every country from being nuclear…

    There you go, thats the ticket! But that, of course, is not going to happen.

    But this isn’t an American issue…

    Of course it is, hasn’t everyone learned by now that the world is America’s playground? Anything thats not an American issue, our leaders make an American issue. ‘We’ don’t just play Big Brother with the world, ‘we’ try to play Daddy with it.

    Brett ~ Richmond, Va.

  2. 2 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 14:37

    I think every nation has the right to nuclear power, so long as they do it in the open. If you hide it, you are obviously trying to develop weapons, and not every nation is led by rational people. If you have a death wish, you would want nations like Iran having nuclear weapons. Even Pakistan is problematic because it’s so likely Islamists could take over. China? Fine, don’t care. They realize that death isn’t that great. Russia? Fine, they understand MAD. So long as opposing people are rational, and both have nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons will not be used.

  3. 3 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 14:47

    @ Brett

    Hey, if you don’t think this is important, take comfort in this, if DC gets nuked, I die instantly, while you have a slow, painful, and cancerous death in Richmond. That’s what happens if we do the Chamberlain with nuclear issues in an age when insane, irrational people want to get nuclear weapons.

  4. 4 Peter Gizzi UK
    April 25, 2008 at 14:53

    Yes most certainly. Israel got “nuclear” with the help of The British and The USA. in secret of course. They were surrounded by non-nuclear countries. No wonder others want to protect themselves too. I feel it is their right.

  5. 5 Dan
    April 25, 2008 at 14:59

    Rights to be Nuclear???…What about RESPONSIBILITY?
    Rights and responsibility are opposite sides of the same coin. One cannot exist without the other.
    Middle Eastern Muslim nations and several African nations have DEMONSTRATED they have no responsibility but like infants with full diapers cry incessantly about their rights.
    These nations have NO nuclear rights until they DEMONSTRATE responsibility.

  6. 6 Shirley
    April 25, 2008 at 15:01

    No. No country should be allowed to have nuclear capabilities. As weaponry, it is unethical. As an energy source, it is dangerous and polluting. It should go the way of nepalm and coal-burning electric plants.

    The two-faced U.S. approach is sick. To willfully* ignore the nuclear activities of certain coujntries while harassing other countries based simply on political biases – or even invading and occupying countries where it has been proven that there are no WMD at all – goes against the conscience. It is unjust.

    * (1 L? 2 L’s? American? British? help!)

  7. April 25, 2008 at 15:09

    @ Steve:
    I don’t think anyone should have nuclear capabilities. It is too much responsibility and many leaders and countries (including the US, See: Hiroshima) are incapable of exercising that responsibility.
    When it comes to policing the nuclear community, it needs to be the collective nuclear community that does the policing; Not rogue states like the US.
    I’m banking on northeastern blowing weather patterns to keep that bad stuff out of the dirty south. You can come hang in Richmond for a bit while the whole thing ‘blows over’ if that happens. Maybe it’d be the perfect excuse for a vacation to Key West or something.

    Brett ~ Richmond, Va.

  8. 8 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 15:12

    @ Shirley

    I can tell you are referring to Israel. Israel has had nuclear weapons since the 1960s, has never used them, nor does it threaten to wipe nations off the Map, like their wonderful neighbors have done so many times over the yeras.

    You are wrong about nuclear energy as a power source. In fact, it’s probably one of the most practical sources IF, and ONLY IF, they don’t use cost cutting measures, dont’ award contracts to the lowest bidder. if done properly, it is non polluting (I understand there’s a nuclear waste issue, but they encase it in glass, and drop it deep into the crust of the earth where it will harm nothing), and produces no greenhouse gases.

  9. 9 Rachel in California USA
    April 25, 2008 at 15:15

    I don’t think any nations should have nuclear weapons, including the USA. The nonproliferation treaty requires the states that currently have nuclear weapons to disarm. Let’s see some progress toward that goal.

    And I believe that nuclear power should be put “on hold” globally until and unless there is a robust, equitable, international arms control regime that can effectively police the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment and waste disposal. The USA cannot and should not attempt to do this policing as a freelance state, and the nuclear weapons “club” cannot be trusted either. The UN has not shown much backbone in insisting on adherence to the Nonproliferation Treaty. Until better enforcement is available, and nuclear disarmament is under way, nuclear power should not grow anywhere.

    There are weak spots where the enrichment process needed for nuclear power can be expanded to make weapons-capable material. Until those weak spots are under robust international control, states like the USA can use them as excuses for aggression, and other states can use them as ways to join the ominous nuclear weapons “club.”

    In the past few years the USA has been making accusations that various nations (Iraq, Iran, North Korea) are enriching uranium beyond what’s needed for nuclear power and pushing into nuclear weapons capability. The accusations in Iraq were false; in North Korea they were probably true. But the USA used the Iraq accusations as a pretext for launching war, brushing aside the UN’s enforcement agency, which found no evidence of any nuclear weapons capability in Iraq. The USA needs to be brought under control of a strong enforcement agency and not allowed to make freelance, false charges as an excuse for war.

  10. April 25, 2008 at 15:18

    At the moment there are enough problems within countries which have nuclear technology. Britian and Europe are moving towards nuclear power, but at the moment the UK does not have sufficient technology… hence we need the french and why Brown and Sarkozy have recently been all chummy.

    I don’t think there is sufficient infastructure in africa to allow the effective development of nuclear technology.

    Can you imagine what it would be like if Mugabe had WMD :S

  11. 11 kathi25
    April 25, 2008 at 15:23

    This is such a two-edged sword it’s not even funny. On the one hand I can totally understand developing countries in Africa that they want nuclear energy plants, otherwise they will be unable to get the amount of energy needed to develop their economies. (Wasn’t there a report about such problems in South Africa recently?) The question is whether you can train the staff to the degree that they can run those plants safely or if they will just run off when there’s a big soccer game somewhere. (I remember such comments during the African Coup.)

    As to weapons, no-one should have them, they are a complete waste of money and resources, because in the end nobody will ever fire one. I think that money could much better be invested into programs that finally apeace the fanatics and bring some reason in the Middle East back on the table. If we help the poor countries there to develop their economies and establish a stable Middle Class that has something to loose, then they will be much less likely to build dirty bombs and blow themselves up in Manhattan.

    Kind regards,
    Katharina in Ghent

  12. 12 VictorK
    April 25, 2008 at 15:33

    Since we’re talking about sovereign states, and given the absence of any transnational body with the authority and power to enforce rights or duties at the state level (regardless of treaty obligations), we really ought to be talking about this in different language ( a ‘right’ that can’t be enforced is purely imaginary)..

    It’s pointless to say that no one should be nuclear: several countries are already and are going to stay that way. It’s no longer an issue. And nuclear power as an energy source, as has been noted, isn’t really a problem for anybody. The issue is this: should certain countries be prevented from acquiring an offensive nuclear capability? And the answer is – yes. Steve’s post set out who should and shouldn’t in terms of the sane (e.g. France) and the insane (e.g. Iran) , and Dan’s in terms of the responsible (e.g. the West, China, Japan) and the irresponsible (e.g. the African and Muslim worlds). The only thing I’d add is that the incompetent should be prevented from acquiring any kind of nuclear capability, too (not just weapons).

    Issues of ‘equality’, ‘justice’ and ‘discrimination’ are unimportant when it comes to an issue like this, where the key considerations are commonsense, self-preservation, and maintaining the world’s peace.

  13. April 25, 2008 at 15:35

    YES!, YES!! , YES!!!.
    Sovereignty, Independence, territorial integrity, the survival of the fittest, no permanent friends only permanent interests, and all states, like all men, are equal, guarantee it. It is an urgent necessity justified by the authoritarianism, fascism, totalitarianism, extreme wickedness, globalism, arrogance and impunity of the government of the USA. The US right corroborates the justification.

    Prince Pieray Odor

    Lagos, Nigeria

  14. 14 gary
    April 25, 2008 at 15:42

    Ask this question of any other wasteful activity, the answer must be same:
    “Knowing how” does not grant license “to do.” Even if Mutually Assured Destruction can be avoided, incredible mutual waste of dwindling world resources has occurred. Every country may possess the knowledge of nuclear physics and use it to the benefit of its people. Nuclear weapons and hydrogen fusion weapons exist; but more than power and prestige, they represent a prodigious waste of time and resources. The answer is simple: No country has the right to be nuclear.

  15. 15 Anthony
    April 25, 2008 at 15:50

    @ Ros

    Does this mean Nuclear Weapons also, or only Nuclear Power, or both? Just wanted a little clarification.

    -Anthony, LA, CA

  16. April 25, 2008 at 15:51

    Nuclear energy should be seen as an alternative to energy derived from fuel. The majority of the countries have no oil reserves. Their economy largely depends on the fluctuations of the oil market. Morocco is one of the countries that France will help Morocco build a civil nuclear energy industry to underpin its development. http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnBAN437020.html

    The world population is getting more and more urban. Those living in the countryside want their share of access to technology. Oil isn’t endless. It’s time to think of developing alternative energies and making accessible to every country indiscriminately.

    Today there is the danger of the scarcity of drinking water. Nuclear energy can be a cheap means to desalinate sea water for many countries, which can also be used in irrigation to boost food production.

    Nuclear energy shouldn’t remain just a weapon in the hands of developed countries like France and the USA which use it as a means of pressure or favouritism. Friendly countries are help to acquire it while regimes opposed to them are scared into abandoning it.

    There should be international cooperation to make nuclear energy widely available for peaceful purposes and why not make nuclear stations in any country run by an international team, which regularly briefs the International Atomic Energy Agency of all their operations?

  17. 17 Drake Weideman
    April 25, 2008 at 15:55

    As others have pointed out, ‘responsibly’ using nuclear technology is the key to whether a nation should be encouraged (I hesitate to use the word ‘allow’ because that implies some entity being ‘in charge’ and, although the UN should ostensibly be the entity with that power it sometimes seems as if various powerful nations would prefer that the UN be somewhat disenfranchised…perhaps mostly because at times the UN has not supported 100% those powerful nations’ desires).
    A major problem with defining a nation’s ‘responsibility’ is that we must trust what we are hearing from our governments and media…and as every government has proven over and over again…they do not always tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Instead, we are told whatever ‘facts’ support the current view that that government is currently trying to push. Media is supposed to be the watchdog but, again, we’ve seen that a lazy, or ideologically driven, or controlled press will often only mirror the garbage the government is trying to push.
    I don’t like being a cynic, but my government (the US) has shown me many, many times over my lifetime that they cannot be trusted to provide me with truthful information (and this extends through many administrations, from both sides)…and the press has similarly shown that you can’t always believe what you read/see/hear. I hesitate to make judgments about any foreign government, regardless of the ‘proof’ offered by my government/media…so it’s certainly hard, if not impossible, for me personally to determine whether I ‘trust’ Iran, N. Korea, Syria, Pakistan, the US, Britain, etc with using nuclear technology properly (as a matter of fact I do NOT currently trust my government to use nuclear tech appropriately, since we abruptly abandoned the SALT treaties (or one of those nuclear limiting agreements…if forget the exact one), have been developing ‘usable’ nuclear weapons and have publicly indicated that we would use one of these ‘limited’ nuclear weapons if the occasion arose, and that that occasion need not be a first strike by some other country).
    I am a supporter of nuclear energy, and see it as being a real answer to much of the fossil-fuel energy sources currently in use worldwide. I think all countries need to make use of nuclear power. My response to those who say some countries would then develop nuclear weapons is “So be it”…we have such things, who are we to say we’re the only ones ‘good’ enough to have them. Let everyone have them, and if someone gets a little nutty and uses them, then we deal with it. Yes lots of people may die, perhaps even myself and my loved ones…but I prefer to trust in the ‘truth’ I perceive, which is that while most people, and governments make lots of noise, very few actually go ‘beyond the pale’ and commit an act as egregious as tossing a nuke at another country would be.

  18. 18 Ros Atkins
    April 25, 2008 at 16:04

    Hi Anthony. Both, though you may have a different attitudes towards nuclear energy and nuclear weapons.

  19. 19 M Harry
    April 25, 2008 at 16:06


    If Israel can have multiple reactors and hundreds of warheads then Syria should have it too.
    The imbalance is why 1m Gazans are being starved, and killed of ever so exquisitely by blockade.
    I support Israel’s existence but I shudder at how wrongly it uses it’s might today supported by nations who should know better.

  20. 20 Will Rhodes
    April 25, 2008 at 16:08

    Peter Gizzi UK April 25, 2008 at 2:53 pm

    Yes most certainly. Israel got “nuclear” with the help of The British and The USA. in secret of course. They were surrounded by non-nuclear countries. No wonder others want to protect themselves too. I feel it is their right.

    You forgot the French.

    The issue is this: should certain countries be prevented from acquiring an offensive nuclear capability? And the answer is – yes.

    100% behind you on that one, Victor. Until the Islamic nations stabilise and show complete responsibility then they should not be allowed to go nuclear. I honestly don’t think that they do realise that *if* they did do something with dirty bombs the consequences of those actions. It would simply be a bloodbath.

  21. April 25, 2008 at 16:11

    Hi to all of you my Precious friends. No and yes ! No country at all should ever have the right to become nuclear, EXCEPT for therapeutic purposes. Using nuclear power as a source of energy carries some real potential hazards on both humans and the enviroment and should better be avoided.BUT in real world unfortunately some countries do already have nuclear weapons, either openly or secretly, so why shouldn’t other countries have nuclear weapons as well ?! I can hear some of you saying that responsibility should be the standard, and to those good friends I say : Where do you draw the line ?! And who does have the right to put criteria for being responsible or not ?! Who does have the moral authority to tell other countries that they’re responsible enough to have nuclear weapons or not ?! The US may be ?! The only country that has ever used nuclear weapons in war (remember the Hiroshima horrific tragedy)?! With my love. Yours forever, Lubna.

  22. 22 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 16:19

    @ M Harry


    If Israel can have multiple reactors and hundreds of warheads then Syria should have it too.
    The imbalance is why 1m Gazans are being starved, and killed of ever so exquisitely by blockade.
    I support Israel’s existence but ”

    Are you suggesting that Israel is killing millions? I guess that validates the point that the Libyan Ambassador to the UN who said that What Israel is doing in Gaza is “worse” than the Nazi concentration camps? Back to reality now. It’s funny how you choose to ignore that Egypt is blockading Gaza too. That Egypt has built a wall their too, that Egypt kills Gazans also, and ignore the fact that Israel is killing people who are launching rockets at Israel from civilian areas. But I wouldn’t want to confuse anyone with the facts.

    Israel doesn’t threaten to wipe nations off the map. Israel doesn’t teach it’s people to hate people based upon their religion, or sect, or nationality. Israel hasn’t ever used its nukes after 40 years of having them, yet you want a sponsor of international terrorism to have nuclear weapons? Okay, makes sense to me.

  23. 23 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 16:21

    @ Lubna

    The US used nuclear weapons because nobody else had them, and rather than have many millions get killed in an invasion of the Japanese mainland (let’s not forget that Japanese civilians would jump off cliffs in okinawa at the approach of advancing americans) dropping the bomb on Japan was a no brainer, and saved lives. That is of course, unless we are upset that not enough japanese got killed? It would have been much better had millions of more Japanese been killed with conventional weapons, right?

  24. 24 John in Salem
    April 25, 2008 at 16:22

    To use the analogy of the late Carl Sagan, we are all standing is a room full of gasoline – allowing everyone to hold a match doesn’t make us all safer.
    Humanity is in a state of denial about nuclear weapons and nuclear technology and I don’t believe we will deal with it realistically until we are forced to.
    Someday someone somewhere will use a bomb and the world will stop.
    Only when that day comes will the conversation truly begin.

  25. April 25, 2008 at 16:23

    I don’t really think every country must have a right to be nuclear. This technology is immensely expensive to maintain for countries in the developing world especially. This can lead to catastrophic consequences. Uganda is drafting an atomic bill but I think this is a mistake. We should invest in better and less risky sources of energy.

    Walter in Entebe, Uganda

  26. 26 Greg
    April 25, 2008 at 16:27

    These are the craziest questions. Why would we not discuss for sure who has them already? This is the problem. There are clearly countries that have nuclear capability and deny it. Nothing can really move forward until all these cards have been put on the table. Then we can discuss if everyone should have them. Unfortunately we cannot rely on governments to be truthful about these important issues. It’s going to be the worst part Bush legacy. Lying and or deception.
    Greg in Oregon

  27. April 25, 2008 at 16:28

    Nuclear energy is the future for energy thirsty countries that can’t afford the rising oil bill. Currently nuclear energy doesn’t satisfy the bulk of energy needs even for industrialised countries, with the exception of France whose electricity production is mostly nuclear. There can be factories that can use nuclear energy for its production. But country the greatest pollutants, vehicles and planes are unlikely to be run by nuclear energy as the technology has not evolved in this direction yet.
    It remains to see how oil lobby will react as declining independence on oil will threaten its future and the futures of the hundreds of workers employed in the sector.

    For third world countries, they need political allies in the developed countries to provide them with it. They can buy as much oil as they can without being asked what they can do with it. But acquiring nuclear energy means their being under constant scrutiny for fear of using it for military purposes. Iran is a vivid example, whose nuclear program is at the centre of worries from countries opposed to its regime, mainly the USA.

    While nuclear energy can be a solution. It is still a dream to see it totally replacing the other sources, mainly oil. At least when there is an oil disaster, like explosions, fire or leak in the sea, the damage is limited. When there is a nuclear disaster, the damage can be of greater magnitude transcending country borders as it happened with Chernobyl.

    So acquiring nuclear energy remains both a political and a health concern for the time being.

  28. April 25, 2008 at 16:30

    Nuclear power, or nuclear bombs.
    There is a difference.
    Everyone has the right to whatever technology is available.

    No person has to right to wantonly kill others in whatever name or whatever god or whatever political nonsense, with whatever technology is at their disposal.

    I think China invented the firework, and the West put the firework in a cannon.

    Correct me if I am wrong.

    It is despicable what the current administrations are doing with this planet, its ideals, its future and the children.

    Did anyone stop to think about the children?

    I doesn’t look like it.

    But when you, dear reader, are dead and rotting, all be it comfortably,
    the children are going to have to cope with this mess.

    Nuclear or not.

    The adults that run this planet are irresponsible, greedy and should be in Summerhill School (http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/) terms; “Brought Up”!
    I would like a meeting about this!

    Something has to change around here, and I think it is increasingly obvious what it has to be…

    Sure ain’t my dial tuned into the BBC, one of the last bastions of freedom, whatever the problems.



  29. 29 Rudolph in Antigua
    April 25, 2008 at 16:36

    No, nobody should be allowed to have it. there is a good side and a worst side to it.1/ it can help wit porviding power for countries but at the same time the byproduct of producing anything nuclear is very harmfull to the environment and all living things. and to add to that lets say the country has a nut case for a leader then what? it can then be used to cause harm but on a grander scale. history shows that the police of the nuclear world is the only one that has ever used it n we can still see the side efficts of it up to today. i do not trust any country with the capasity to harness the power of a nuclear anything. im afraid that the next war that will take place and the way thing are going it will because there is no trust among the leaders of the world, will be a nuclear war.”END OF LIFE AS WE KNOW IT”.

  30. 30 Anthony
    April 25, 2008 at 16:37

    To me Nuclear Weapons are like firearms, and Nuclear Energy is like a driver’s license in the States.

    For the Weapons, they have the right as long as they can prove to be responsible, safe, and do not have any reasons they would use it for wrong. Everyone should also be required to register them for this reason.

    For the Energy, they need to show everyone they are responsible and safe enough for it.

    -Anthony, LA, CA.

  31. 31 Janet T
    April 25, 2008 at 16:38

    nuclear energy – yes
    nuclear weapons- no one on earth needs them, altho the threat of them has certainly kept things in check over the years.

  32. 32 Shirley
    April 25, 2008 at 16:41

    We agree on some things. We disagree on others. So be it.

    The U.S. does not ignore only Israel, but also India, Pakistan, and other nations that possess nuclear arms. I was specifically referring to the fact that the U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq, which had no WMD, while everyone knew that North Korea had nuclear weapons and was actively proliferating them. You need to work on your mind-reading skills, though you do bring up a good point, in a convoluted kind of way.

    It is, in fact, Israel that has acted as the major threat to Middle East peace for the past several decades by invading and occupying its neighbours, making land grabs against them, settling its population in their lands, and doing all manner of breaking of other international laws. Since this is not related to the national possession of nuclear energy, we should find some other place to continue this disussion, if each of us wants to. As it stands now, I am satisfied to leave it as it is: you stated your piece, I stated mine, and perhaps we can agree to disagree for now.

  33. 33 Ivan Lindau
    April 25, 2008 at 16:41

    I find it helpful to look back at WWII. WWII lead subsequently to the Cold War and gave rise to how and why the US and the rest of the world arrived to current nuclear arsenals.
    I read that the US can go from possessing zero weapons to weaponization and deployment within 48 hours. It would take, in comparison, Sweden 7 days. Sweden has nuclear power, but no nuclear weapons.
    Would it not be a great time for America to exercise it’s (dwindling) superpower status in encouraging worldwide nuclear disarmament more aggressively? I believe it is not too late to convince the peoples of the world and their governments to forego nuclear weapons altogether. To demonstrate this the US should eliminate all their stocks in parallel with all other nations.
    Monitoring will ensure no huge build-up of nuclear weapons. Quick available capacity to weaponize for large countries will ensure that response to new threats can be taken if the situation becomes so dire.

    Lund, Sweden

  34. April 25, 2008 at 16:43

    Until the Islamic nations stabilise and show complete responsibility then they should not be allowed to go nuclear. I honestly don’t think that they do realise that *if* they did do something with dirty bombs the consequences of those actions. It would simply be a bloodbath.

    This would all be so much easier of a debate if baby Jesus and Allah had the foresight to deem nuclear power and weapons a sin. One like ‘If you use nukes, do not pass go, do not collect $200, straight to Hades with you’. Maybe they and the other deities could have just frowned on weapons or their useage? Surely they knew that we were capable of killing ourselves off on a massively idiotic scale.
    And then at least we wouldnt have to worry about the boogy-man, Islam, Christians, 3rd world, or Western nations getting a hold of them and misusing them… I guess just the seculars and atheists then would be the problematic few.

    Brett ~ Richmond, Va.

  35. 35 Justin from Iowa
    April 25, 2008 at 16:45

    I see this as a very simple question and response:

    If you want nuclear weapons, then you aren’t responsible enough to have them and should be prevented, by whatever means possible, from acquiring them.

    Wanting nuclear weapons, means that at some level you want to USE nuclear weapons.

    Of the “old” powers who had nuclear weapons, Russia, the US, France, Britain… they didn’t WANT nuclear weapons. They acquired nuclear weapons not to use, but as a deterrant to other people using them. MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction.

    In today’s world, post cold war, nuclear weapons are seen differently. They are seen as prestige, or a valid weapon for both political and military gains.

    Indeed, the US policy on nuclear weapons, for example, must be totally and completely ruthless. Because while terrorists or rogue states may see hitting the US with a nuclear weapon as a valid option, and attempt it, anyone who has any smidgen of intelligence realizes the US would never respond with its own nuclear weapons. MAD is still in effect, a superpower cutting loose with nukes anywhere on the globe carries the chance that someone might decide to retaliate in turn, and set off a chain of events which could never be retrieved.

    I would rather another iraq war, another vietnam, than see a country with the desire to use nuclear weapons acquire them.

  36. 36 VictorK
    April 25, 2008 at 16:45

    @ Will: yes, the main concern is nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic states.

    The logical progression of an ‘Islamic bomb’ (as the Pakistanis so revealingly called their device) is to the sharing of nuclear technology with Jihadist terrorists (remember, Islam is an ideology that breeds men who welcome death, think it their religious duty to fight and kill non-Muslims, and who we know from experience regard mass murder as a ticket to paradise) and culminates in the detonation of dirty nuclear bombs in Western cities. This by no means improbable sequence of events is something that the ‘all must have nuclear devices’ crowd should think long and hard about, since the sequence isn’t going to end there. Nuclear retaliation against (Muslim) countries with known or even suspected links to the bombers, far right nationalist parties gaining strength all over Europe and sharing in government or being the party of government, and the mass expulsion of Europe’s and America’s Muslim populations (nobody will be interested in nonsense about ‘wininning Muslim hearts and minds’ after hundreds of thousands have been killed and maimed in the name of Islam). If that scenario is acceptable to you then go on agitating for the proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially in the Muslim world.

  37. 37 Shirley
    April 25, 2008 at 16:46

    Lubnaaa hayatiiiii! assalamu `alaykum wa rahmatullah!

    Sister, what did you mean when you said that nations should be allowed to have nuclear energy for therapeutic uses? I do not know of therapeutic uses for nuclear energy yet. Were you talking about something else?

  38. 38 Ros Atkins
    April 25, 2008 at 16:49

    Ownership of nuclear weapons is not an issue of right to have but ability to be a responsible owner. The world cant afford to allow a state such as Iran that has called for the destruction of israel to own that capability. Neither can we allow syria which supports terrorists including suicide bomber to own nukes. If the bomber are willing to die to kill, then they would not hesitate to use nukes on large populations. The world must listen to and support the united states.
    Kwabena in Ghana

  39. 39 David
    April 25, 2008 at 16:52

    Talk about responsibility! What responsibility? Was it responsible to nuke Hiroshima? Is it responsibility for Hilary Clinton to want to obliterate Iran with nuclear weaponry should it attach Israel? Why cant humans just start to talk to each other? I am sure many Iranians do not want to see Israel attacked and the vice versa. In my conscious, no country should be allowed nuclear weaponry. If one country is allowed then all countries have the right to be nuclear. And for policing the nuclear community, it must be left solely for the UN, but not United Nation on leach by another country but United Nation leading without question.

    What happened to nonproliferation treaty that requires the states that currently have nuclear weapons to disarm? Why those countries with nuclear weapons not behaving responsibly and disarm?

  40. April 25, 2008 at 16:56

    @ Steve
    “The US used nuclear weapons because nobody else had them, and rather than have many millions get killed in an invasion of the Japanese mainland (let’s not forget that Japanese civilians would jump off cliffs in okinawa at the approach of advancing americans) dropping the bomb on Japan was a no brainer, and saved lives. That is of course, unless we are upset that not enough japanese got killed? It would have been much better had millions of more Japanese been killed with conventional weapons, right?”

    Ah, the sweet justification of massive civilian casualties to make it ‘safer’ for an invading force while at the same time ‘helping’ the local population. I’ve seen this somewhere in the recent years pertaining to another conflict… But I just can’t put my finger on it. I think it started with an “I” or something. Anyhow, I’ll choose jumping off a cliff any day than live for days in agonizing pain with my skin melted off, eyes burned out of their sockets vomitting black bile containing what used to be my insides.
    Killing people through radiation and burning is NOT a way of ‘saving’ lives.
    Furthermore, no one can say for sure how many troops or Japanese would have died without the bomb being dropped.

    Brett ~ Richmond, Va.

  41. 41 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 16:56

    @ Shirley

    It is NOT israel that has been the threat to middle east security for the past several decades. Why did Iran-Iraq go to war for 8 years? Why were Chad and Libya at war? There has been war in the middle east forever, and it’s not all Israel’s fault. Invading and occupying? Only in response to attacks from Israel’s neighbors. Why were people like you silent when Egypt and Jordan conquered and occupied Gaza and the WB from 1948-1967? Was that okay because it wasn’t done by israel? Settling it’s population in their lands? Kinda funny why Hebron is called Hebron eh? Let me ask you, do you think Arabs are native to north Africa? So I’ll ask you why there’s a double standard, why is it okay for arabs to invade and occupy, but not anyone else?

  42. 42 Dolapo Aina
    April 25, 2008 at 17:07

    Is this world an equal opportunity arena? If yes, then all countries have the right to nuclear power and enrichment. But it is not so. Simply because a bully dressed as a super power wouldn’t allow or tolerate such. It beggars believe that some countries would be allowed nuclear power and others wont.
    Basically, it has to do with tact. If a country gets it before America can intervene then all well and good for such country. We can’t forget what India and Pakistan did in the eighties. They beat the west to their game.
    Succinctly put, it is about unknown fear. No country would allow a country that her values and thinking aren’t in conformity with the posse’s. That is the reason why a lot of countries are trying to get nuclear power without this click’s consent. Every country hast he right to nuclear weapons. If we argue that some countries aren’t entitled, who sets the rules and if wee say rogues states shouldn’t have nukes, aren’t the arbiters of such rules no also rogues.
    Finally, since a lot of countries aren’t secured in the midst of their neighbors. Nukes are better so that countries would tread cautiously.
    Dolapo Aina,
    Lagos, Nigeria

  43. 43 Idris O. Iyoha
    April 25, 2008 at 17:09

    Why is it that the United States used to make much noise the moment a country wants to own a nuclear bomb, especially if the country is a muslim country e.g Syria and Iran? Why is the US government so afraid in case the muslim world or emerging economies own nuclear bomb? Have they forgotten when they test fired theirs in the 40’s over innocent people at Nagasaki and co?

    Idris O. Iyoha
    Kaduna, Nigeria.

  44. 44 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 17:10

    @ Brett

    More people (civilians) were killed in the conventional bombing raids of Tokyo, Hamburg, Dresden, etc than the nuclear attacks. So it’s okay if it’s done with conventional weapons, and we can ingnore that, and just focus on the nuclear attacks, which ENDED the war and thus saved the lives of millions of people would who have been killed in an invasion?

  45. 45 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 17:12

    @ Brett

    “Furthermore, no one can say for sure how many troops or Japanese would have died without the bomb being dropped”

    True, but do you think the Japanese were going to welcome the American landing forces with flowers and margaritas? Come on, many more people would have been killed had the US invaded. Look at precedents, look at the Soviet/Germay urban combat, and the incredibly high amounts of casualties and civilian deaths. The Japanese were even more fanatic, and the ONLY reason the Japanese surrundered was that the Emperor was convinced that the nuclear bomb was just incredibly powerful and that the people would suffer incredibly from an invasion of Japan.

  46. 46 David
    April 25, 2008 at 17:13

    If we were all nuclear the world would be more safer than now. If we were all non nuclear the world would be the safest place to raise children and for huans to live in.

  47. April 25, 2008 at 17:18

    So it’s okay if it’s done with conventional weapons, and we can ingnore that

    Nope, it’s not ok. We are talking about Nuclear Weapons here and I didn’t want to stray too far off subject criticizing the use of conventional bombing raids on what were known to be denseley populated civilian targets. Neither is acceptable or ok. Please allow me to appologize if thats the way you understood it.

    Brett ~ Richmond, Va.

  48. 48 David
    April 25, 2008 at 17:26

    As a devoted Christian, I hate to see so much harm inflicted to innocent people. Don’t those who inflict pain against others fear the life after this? Furthermore most of those who inflict this pain have no more than 30 years before they meet their maker. Does this not frighten them? As I grow older, I keep on thinking who did I wrong and if I can approach the person and say I am sorry I wronged you, it makes me feel better, but it is up to him/her to pardon me.

  49. April 25, 2008 at 17:27

    Hi Precious Steve. It feels so good to be able to speak to you again on the WHYS blog. I’d be pretty interested in getting an answer from you to this question : Are you suggesting that the horrific murdering of tens of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians by the American nuclear bombs in 1945 was justifiable ?! And do you think that your government really has a moral authority to tell other countries that they’re responsible enough to have nuclear weapons or not ?! In this context everyone’s point of view counts, because every side will tell you that its national security is threatened by other nuclear sides and that it must get nuclear weapons inorder to protect itself from those threats. So I ask you guys again : Is there any side whose hands are clean enough to set criteria of who should or should not have nuclear weapons ?! Lots of love and blessings to you Steve and to all of you guys from Baghdad. Yours forever, Lubna.

  50. 50 Count Iblis
    April 25, 2008 at 17:28

    The NPT treaty has a provision which allows a country to leave the NPT treaty (and make nuclear weapons if they so wish). The NPT member must give a few months notice in that case.

    We have to understand that the NPT treaty is not restrictive in nature. It is just a treaty that allows countries to get assistance on nuclear matters with the guarantee that the assistance they get will not be diverted to make nuclear weapons.

    Now, if a country acquires nuclear weapons technology outside of what they get by virtue of being inside of the NPT then that does not really violate the spirit of the NPT.

    The real problem is that the US wants to interfere in the rights that countries have under the NPT. Iran has the right to enrich uranium whether we like it or not. Iran was denied access to nuclear technology which prompted them to acquire nuclear technology outside of the NPT. No evidence of a nuclear weapons program based on what they have acquired was found by the IAEA.

  51. 51 Count Iblis
    April 25, 2008 at 17:36

    Steve, I don’t think the US would have invaded Japan. There was an agreement with Stalin that Stalin would attack Japanese forces later on in the war (after they had finshed dealing with Germany).

    Now, toward the end of the war, the US had second thoughts about that. So, it should be clear why the US had to end the war fast. Not because of an invasion which would have claimed many US lives (the US could also simply have blockaded Japan into submission), but rather to prevent Japan from becoming a communist country.

  52. 52 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 17:36

    HI Lubna

    “Are you suggesting that the horrific murdering of tens of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians by the American nuclear bombs in 1945 was justifiable ?! And do you think that your government really has a moral authority to tell other countries that they’re responsible enough to have nuclear weapons or not ?! ”

    Yup, I’m saying it is justifiable, as the alternative would have killed more people. It’s simple mathetmatics. Of course I would have preferred that the war never happened, that Japan had never attacked the US, that Japan never raped Manchuria and invaded much of Asia, but since they did that, the war had to end some way. May I ask you something? Would you rather have had 200,000 die from nuclear attacks, or 2,000,000 die from conventional bombings and an invasion?

    What was irresponsible about using the bomb in WW2? The responsibility issue is now, that if your opponent has nuclear weapons, you won’t use them if both sides are rational. That’s why we never had a nuclear war with the USSR, and why we never will with China, because both sides are responsible, and rational. Deterrence can only work on a rational enemy.

  53. 53 Will Rhodes
    April 25, 2008 at 17:43

    @ Brett – I would like to make my stance on Nuclear weapons and Nuclear power – I would rather no one had either! But that is an impossibility so we have to work within the boundaries we have now.

    Rouge states, whether Islamic or not would use Nuclear weapons if they could – what I am saying is that if those states wish to go down that road they must, must, must understand the reaction that will, inevitably follow.

    As Victor said – the sequence of events after an attack is beyond comprehension. The deaths of civilians as are of now would be a mere jot on what would be the case then.

  54. April 25, 2008 at 17:50

    No nations should have nuclear weapons or reactors. People should be given the opportunity to own their own power – solar and wind technology makes this a reality. As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, I believe it’s a thing of the past. It’s always used as a threat but never used. Hell, I think countries should just say they have nuclear weapons – look what happened to Iraq and the ever elusive WMD’s.

  55. 55 CarlosK
    April 25, 2008 at 17:52

    Hi All

    As long as Israel has nuclear weapon the world will be unsafe.

    The Muslims will not stop until they have their hands on nuclear bomb beacuse their enemy Israel has it.

    This is the sad reality.

  56. 56 Joel Salomon
    April 25, 2008 at 17:54

     This conversation shouldn’t be about “rights” at all. The various governments of the world have an obligation to protect their citizenry; if they feel threatened by some neighbor’s development of nuclear weapons, they have the obligation to try to stop it. Therefore, any country with a significant risk of revolution, or where suicide bombing is glorified (so the M.A.D. scenario isn’t a deterrent), will have much of the world trying to keep them from “going nuclear”.
     Nuclear power is another matter entirely. It is the cleanest and safest of all energy sources with the capacity to sustain a “Western” life-style. Solar, wind, and tidal power are neither applicable everywhere nor capable of supply on the scale needed, while deep-sea hydrothermal and space-satellite solar are not yet technically feasible. And the current fad of burning food (ethanol from corn grown on arable land) is helping contribute to the global food shortage. There’s a very short list of currently workable alternatives: fossil fuels and nuclear fission.

  57. 57 selena
    April 25, 2008 at 18:01

    Apparently, the US and allies raced to develop the atomic bomb during WW2 because they were convinced that Germany was developing one.

    When the war was over, they found that no bomb was being developed. Moreover, the intelligence community knew this all along but was rebuffed by the politicians. Sound familiar??

    To those who think that there is one politician who is responsible, let me remind you there is absolutely no evidence of this, except that which resides in our particular bias.

    A US supply ship fired on an Iranian patrol boat today. It looks ever more likely that Iran will be targeted before President George Bush leaves office. Does anyone wonder why Iran wants a nuclear bomb?

    Also, I saw in a documentary recently (can’t remember the name), that Japan was ready to surrender before the bomb was dropped.

  58. 58 Francy
    April 25, 2008 at 18:10

    Are you serious? Are you telling me that with today’s technologies we can’t do any better than NUCLEAR ENERGY? Give me a break. We can do SO much better than that. Nuclear Energy is a cop out.

  59. 59 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 18:11

    @ CarlosK

    “As long as Israel has nuclear weapon the world will be unsafe.

    The Muslims will not stop until they have their hands on nuclear bomb beacuse their enemy Israel has it.

    This is the sad reality.”

    carlos, your argument is no different thatn “so long as women are attractive, or dress in a sexy manner, they will get raped”… You are saying the world is unsafe because of how israel will use or not use their nukes, or from the arab/muslim reaction to the fact israel has nuclear weapons?

  60. 60 Justin from Iowa
    April 25, 2008 at 18:12

    @ Lubna: Obviously I’m not the worthy Steve, but I would like to respond to your questions from my opinion.

    On the nuclear attacks against japan in WW2:

    Japan could have surrendered at any time. By the time the bombs were dropped the war was not in doubt, only the cost to both countries. It was war, and given the choice of dead japanese AND dead americans, or dead japanese, the US government chose the course of fewer american deaths. Considering the japanese were the AGGRESSORS in this conflict, they sowed the seed and reaped the harvest, so yes it was justified imho.

    On the question of whether the US has the moral authority to prohibit other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons… Every country, imho, has the right, and the DUTY to prevent nuclear weapons from spreading. What gives anyone the moral authority to say the US shouldn’t stop nukes from spreading?

  61. April 25, 2008 at 18:12

    Every country has the right to pocess nuclear technology. However such a technology should be geared towards improving the lives of the citizens and the entire global populace. Today’s world is such that, actions taken by individual countries have knock-on effect on neigboring countries. This is why it has become necessary that the entire humanity should have a say in what happen in any country at any given time.
    Perhaps if the world had acted with one purpose and voice,dangerous characters like Adolf Hitler would not have had their way. In this context,the right to have nuclear,should be determined by the United nations.

    Napo Ali Fuseini, Accra-Ghana

  62. 62 Shirley
    April 25, 2008 at 18:12

    I understand that you are saying that no one nation is innocent of bloodhsed, and so therefore no-one deserves the right to possess nuclear arms. However, I do not see the situation as one of who deserves to possess nuclear weapons or whether merit can be gained to have nuclear arms. In my opinion, nuclear weaponry *should not exist*.

    Being an idealist can be criticised in a realistic world. However, I say that without ideals, we have nothing towards which we can direct our goals and aims. If we release our hold on ideals, then we release ourselves from fulfilling any expectations, and anything becomes permissible. Therefore, I do not feel any hesitation in stating my ideal position as a black and white statement of moral and political obligation: nuclear weapons shoudl not exist.

  63. April 25, 2008 at 18:13

    Todays quetion has answered itself and really show that some countries always want to be atop intimidating other countries. If everybody has it the power is gone, hence there has to be a way to keep others at bay.

    Lawal Portharcourt, Nigeria

  64. 64 Joel
    April 25, 2008 at 18:14

    What largely got lost here is not only Syria’s right to have such a technology but the fact that Israel violated Syria’s sovereinty and destroyed the supposed nuclear building. Amazingly, no one objected to such a violation. Israel made itself the “nuclear sheriff” of the M.East while it stockpiles 100s of nuclear weapons in violation of all international protocols.

  65. April 25, 2008 at 18:14

    @ Brett – I would like to make my stance on Nuclear weapons and Nuclear power – I would rather no one had either! But that is an impossibility so we have to work within the boundaries we have now.

    Rouge states, whether Islamic or not would use Nuclear weapons if they could – what I am saying is that if those states wish to go down that road they must, must, must understand the reaction that will, inevitably follow.

    As Victor said – the sequence of events after an attack is beyond comprehension. The deaths of civilians as are of now would be a mere jot on what would be the case then

    I completely agree with you both.

  66. 66 Justin from Iowa
    April 25, 2008 at 18:15

    Back on topic please, lets not turn this into an israel/iran discussion

  67. 67 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 18:16

    @ Selena

    You are completely wrong. The Germans were hard at work developing nuclear weapons. They were just unsuccessful, that’s not the same as saying they had no program, like you claim. There was also sabotage. Germany had it’s heavy water plants in Norway, the Norwegians would sabotage it, thus hindering the German weapons program.

    “A US supply ship fired on an Iranian patrol boat today. It looks ever more likely that Iran will be targeted before President George Bush leaves office. Does anyone wonder why Iran wants a nuclear bomb?”

    And Iran took several British sailors and Marines prisoner in international waters, so? What’s your point? The US ship was defending itself given Iran has a little tendency of taking foreigners hostage. Sorry they defend themselves. Maybe they’ll allow themselves to be taken if that will make you sleep better at night.

  68. 68 Thea Winter - Indianapolis
    April 25, 2008 at 18:17

    In the 79 I wrote a paper on nuclear power for school. That was after the three mile island accident. Because of that and Chernobyl I believe nuclear power is safer than before. Also, at that time gas was less the $1.00 US. Now I agree that all countries have the right to nuclear power. With the growing need for power it is needed to help emerging markets in the world to better their standard of living.

  69. 69 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 18:19

    @ Joel

    Then why didn’t syria complain? Because they knew they were violating international law, especially because they were dealing with. N.Korea, BTW, israel isn’t violating any international law because they aren’t a member of the NPT. Sorry if the truth isn’t convenient for your argument.

  70. 70 Jean Smith
    April 25, 2008 at 18:21

    Israel snuck it’s way into having nuclear power and weapons and now hangs their weapons over the heads of it’s neighbors as it invades the West Bank and hold territory of the West Bank, Lebanon and Syria.

    The Thorium Cycle would require a small conventional reaction to start the process.
    Once it is started it doesn’t produce weapons materiel.

  71. April 25, 2008 at 18:23

    if Iran or North Korea or any single country does not have a right to nuclear weapons, then no one does. It’s all too easy for nations with nuclear weapons to say no one else should be allowed in the club. The only morally defensible path is universal nuclear disarmament.

  72. 72 selena
    April 25, 2008 at 18:24

    Joel, you are quite! We skip over everything that doesn’t fit with our particular world view. It is an old tactic and works well. If Iran had done the same thing it would have been vilified.

  73. 73 KMJUMBE
    April 25, 2008 at 18:25

    Any nation that has the resources should be well within their rights to acquire nuclear technology for whatever purpose they deem fit.

    Correction to one of your commentators, contrary to his comments, there HAS been one nation that has used nuclear technology for hostile purposes. That being the same nation that acts a pariah to the IAEA, the US against Japan in WW II. That same war gave rise to the state of Israeli on historically arab nations lands. And it was with US and British backing and South African scientists that Israeli became a nuclear nation.

    If Israeli is allowed to be a nuclear state then so such Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE if they so desire.

    In fact, what really happened to the nuclear program of the former white South African government once it was voted out of office with the rise of the ANC? As an African, I would like to seen fifty of the the fifty-four African nations as nuclear nations.

  74. 74 Scott Millar
    April 25, 2008 at 18:26

    The band the Cranberries defined this with there album: Everybody Else Is Doing It, So Why Can’t We?

    Others stupidity doesn’t make yours acceptable, it doesn’t balance the scales. If someone commits a crime you don’t commit one also just because you can. Not very smart.

    -Portland, Oregon

  75. 75 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 18:27

    Re: Omar the caller from Somalia living in the US. If he hates the US so much, why is he here? I’m just curious about that. And why of course did he froth about Israel? Didn’t realize Israel was threatening to wipe nations off the map, especially Somalia. Guess who Omar was taught to hate from the day he was born?

  76. 76 Ruben
    April 25, 2008 at 18:29

    Every country has the right to protect its interests by any means. This protective arsenal can be political, economic, nuclear, military or otherwise.

    Small arms have had a far greater impact across the globe, yet we rarely ever hear talks of “small arms” proliferation.

    It is very hard to ask others not to protect themselves when you yourself are armed to the teeth.

  77. 77 selena
    April 25, 2008 at 18:30

    Steve, would you point me to some evidence that Germany was working on the atomic bomb? All the evidence I have seen has come to the contrary conclusion. The allies looked long and hard and found one small space under a church basement, which was devoted to the research. Thanks.

  78. 78 Jean Smith
    April 25, 2008 at 18:30

    The non-proliferartion treaty depends on freeing the nonnuclear power from the threat of attack by nuclear powers. The United States has threatened nonnuclear powers with nuclear attack and as does Israel. the treaty is dead.

  79. April 25, 2008 at 18:32

    Isn’t it interesting the countries that are screaming the most and threatening the most countries which are trying to have nuclear energie/weapons are the ones that have a LARGE cache of nuclear WEAPONS.
    and….once a country has it ( India, pakistan etc etc) the threats stop and they become our “best friends” with the overt aggressive behavior of the USA, every country must feel threatened and has the right to develop whatever they want.

    Marie in San Francisco

  80. April 25, 2008 at 18:32

    It makes no sense for Iran, or any other country, to develop nuclear energy when there is no save way to dispose of the spent fuel. If energy is there real purpose, why not pursue solar energy?

    Porltland, Or

  81. 81 Scott Kelley
    April 25, 2008 at 18:32

    Isn’t the issue the production of nuclear fuel?

    If a country had a nuclear power plant but contracted to purchases nuclear fuel from France, does that country pose any threat?

    If not, wouldn’t an answer be for the UN to become the provider of nuclear fuel, with clear provisions that they MUST provide fuel for any legitimate operating energy plant?

  82. April 25, 2008 at 18:32

    Nuclear energy as a source of energy is a technology that should be available to all nations. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, should be banned globally, especially due to the irresponsible use of atom bombs by “the superpowers” not excluding the US.

    Arablak, Atlanta, USA

  83. 83 Joel
    April 25, 2008 at 18:32

    Justin from Iowa. Apparently you don’t read the news. The reason this discussion is taking place is because America claims that, and objects to Syria having a nuclear industry. And ISRAEL has supposedly destroyed the suspected building. How do you propose to extract Israel out of this discussion when it is right at the heart of it?
    Joel Dallas, TX

  84. April 25, 2008 at 18:32

    All this talk of the threats and dangers of nuclear weapons is utterly superficial without including the REAL threat of nuclear technology: the fact that we do not know what to do with the HIGHLY TOXIC & LONG LASTING waste products that occur during the processing of nuclear materials, wether for energy or defense. This danger will outlast our conversation about rights and our current power struggles by hundreds/thousands of years.

    Oregon, US

  85. 85 Justin from Iowa
    April 25, 2008 at 18:32

    Countries aren’t the only entities that can use nuclear weapons now though! That is what nobody thinks about. There aren’t fanatic elements in the united states wanting to steal a nuke and go destroy Iran. There are no rebel elements in Israel wishing to sieze nukes to destroy Egypt. There are groups throughout the middle east, iran, iraq, syria, many countries who would happily grab a nuke and USE IT.

    Why does no one else seem to see this as a problem?

    And why is the topic of responsibility continually being glossed over and not spoken of on air? Would somalia have the responsibility of keeping a nuclear reactor going, let alone building one, without destroying themselves? Where have they shown this level of responsability? How many other countries fall under this?

    The offer to process nuclear material and assist with nuclear power has been made to Iran, why would they not take that opportunity? If nuclear power is for the benefit of your people for generating power, why can’t you contract with countries who have the ability to build reactors to install them for you and train/supervise your country in their use?

  86. 86 Ryan
    April 25, 2008 at 18:34

    The American spokesperson argues that Iran is under no threat that would justify a nuclear deterrent. Since Iran, Iraq and North Korea were included in Bush’s “Axis of Evil” all were given notice that they were under threat from US military intervention. North Korea has proven that nuclear capability forces the US to the negotiation table. Iraq’s lack of “weapons of mass destruction” gave it no protection against US aggression. Would the US have attacked if it had really believed Iraq had nukes?

  87. 87 Joel Salomon
    April 25, 2008 at 18:36

     Francy: what other technologies do you think can replace fossil fuels?
     Joel: as VictorK pointed out above (#comment-18245), the “right” of Syria to have nuclear force is irrelevant. Its build-up up of such weapons threatens Israel’s existence, and Israel acted to preserve its own sovereignty. Also, what “international protocols” does Israel violate by keeping nuclear arms? As I understand it, the NNTP is voluntary and Israel simply never signed.

  88. 88 Anthony
    April 25, 2008 at 18:36

    To get things straight. Germany started their nuclear arms program in 1939, and Japan started theirs in 1942. They couldn’t quit get it right, but we (America) did. Also, I am pretty sure that both groups would have used theirs if they were able to.

    Another thing is that Japan would have fought TILL THE END. People (have estimated more that 2 millions lives were saved by bombing with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Just an FYI

    -Anthony, LA, CA

  89. 89 Shirley
    April 25, 2008 at 18:37

    You are correct. Even several years ago when information was not as widely available online as it is now, I was able to assemble an essay showing that there was no military threat from Japan, that they were prepared to negotiate a surrender, that there was much talk among U.S. scientists and politicians of what possible impact a nuclear bomb would have on humans, etc. My main point in that essay was that the only reason that the U.S. dropped the atomic bomb on Japan was to conduct an experiment (racist, too), and not to achieve any real military or political end. I cannot possibly pull together today all of the sources that I used for that essay, but I still have photographic images of the sources that I used and the essay itself. I was dead certain of my conclusion, and the essay was graded “A.”

  90. 90 Anthony
    April 25, 2008 at 18:38

    Lets all imagine a world where the US, Great Britian, and France didn’t have Nuclear Weapons, and Iran, North Korea, and Syria did. Not a very safe world.

    -Anthony, LA, CA

  91. April 25, 2008 at 18:38

    “America’s heart is in its right place”
    Yea, the right place for its own interests…

  92. April 25, 2008 at 18:40


  93. 93 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 18:42

    @ Jean

    “Israel snuck it’s way into having nuclear power and weapons and now hangs their weapons over the heads of it’s neighbors as it invades the West Bank and hold territory of the West Bank, Lebanon and Syria.”

    Yeah, so that stopped Hezbollah from crossing into Israel and killing soldiers and kidnapping several and Hamas from doing the same? Israel has nukes, Hamas as small rockets, yet Hamas doesn’t seem that scared of launching rockets into Israel knowing israel has nukes. I guess your claim that israel is hanging their weapons of it’s enemies is either untrue or not working, which is it?

  94. 94 Justin from Iowa
    April 25, 2008 at 18:44

    Where its own interests include not getting nuked, Brett… You got that right.

  95. 95 Shirley
    April 25, 2008 at 18:46

    I do not think that nuclear energy is clean energy at all. Looking at Wikipedia’s article on nuclear power, I found the following:
    The most important waste stream from nuclear power plants is spent fuel. A large nuclear reactor produces 25–30 tonnes of spent fuel each year. Spent fuel is highly radioactive . As of 2007, the United States had accumulated more than 50,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors. 10,000 years of radioactive decay, according to U.S. EPA standards, the spent nuclear fuel will no longer pose a threat to public health and safety. In the U.S., which does not reprocess nuclear waste, one source said “Already more than 80,000 tonnes of highly radioactive waste sits in cooling pools next to the 103 US nuclear power plants, awaiting transportation to a storage facility yet to be found.” The nuclear industry also produces a volume of low-level radioactive waste in the form of contaminated items like clothing, hand tools, water purifier resins, and (upon decommissioning) the materials of which the reactor itself is built. In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has repeatedly attempted to allow low-level materials to be handled as normal waste: landfilled, recycled into consumer items, et cetera. (Wikipedia, “Nuclear Power”)

    If we want clean energy, why aren’t we trying to establish more wind farms and construct more solar panels? Something smells fish-ily of money here.

  96. 96 Joel Salomon
    April 25, 2008 at 18:47

     “World Have Your Say”: Spent fuel is usable in other reactor designs; look up nuclear reprocessing. And what cannot yet be reprocessed will be usable eventually.
     And to all those advocating that nuclear weapons be banned entirely, I’ve got two questions about enforcement:
    • How, exactly, do you propose taking the nukes away from a power that has it, the U.S. for example? and
    • What is to prevent some nation from replacing its nuclear stockpile, or developing a new one, if the deterrent threat is gone?

  97. 97 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 18:47

    @ Selena, could I point you to google? It’s all out there. Because the germans didn’t successfully build a bomb doesn’t mean they had a program. Why did Germany have heavy water plants in Norway? What would be the purpose? Even Heisenburg worked on the german program, he’s a very famous physicist. If anything, he prevented the success of the program. But you don’t think the program existed because they didn’t successfully build a bomb? That’s like saying the Soviets didn’t have a program to go to the moon only because it wasn’t successful? They had developed some amazingly large rockets, even larger than the Saturn V, but the program never got off the ground, doesn’t mean it never existed.

  98. 98 selena
    April 25, 2008 at 18:47

    Your guest is saying that a dictatorial power should not have nuclear weapons. The US is a democracy and no one in the country could stop their government from invading Iraq.

    What is the difference?

    No country should have nuclear weapons or every country should have nuclear weapons.

  99. 99 gary
    April 25, 2008 at 18:49

    The comments on nuclear power and nuclear weapons make only one thing perfectly clear: Nations need to spend more time talking to each other. One “atomic bombs” worth of money spent organizing communication would have more deterent value than all of the other atomic weapons now have.

  100. April 25, 2008 at 18:50

    Nuclear energy makes problems while it solves other. A family member died of many cancers from the Manhattan project waste which went under a housind development called Love Canal. I lived though Three Mile Island where the government had no plan for the people around if the plant blew more seriously than the first breech. There are barges floating around full of waste that no country will take. Danger, wherever this technology sits.

  101. 101 Justin from Iowa
    April 25, 2008 at 18:51

    I have to disagree on the point that no one needs to share information, how can anyone expect any world wide supervisory body to WORK if we don’t do all we can to support it… and that includes sharing information in a timely manner.

  102. 102 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 18:52

    @ Shirley

    “I was able to assemble an essay showing that there was no military threat from Japan, that they were prepared to negotiate a surrender, that there was much talk among U.S. scientists and politicians of what possible impact a nuclear bomb would have on humans, etc.”

    Dear Shirley, please tell that to the million or so dead Chinese that were killed by the Japanese. I’m sure the Japanese were absolutely about to surrender, hence why they went full scale with their kamikaze program. And I suppose that’s why civilians in Okinawa started to kill themselves?

    Now it’s about race? Please… enough conspiracy theories. The Japanese had no plans of surrendering, and were bombed into submission, and they almost unconditionally surrendered, the only condition was that the emperor could remain emperor.

  103. April 25, 2008 at 18:52

    The Americans have every right to be in this discussion. The middle east was de-stabalized long before the US invaded Iraq.

  104. 104 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 18:53

    “Middle east has no problem with Iran”? HHAHAHHAH! Funniest comment of the day! The arab nations absolutely are crapping their pants at the prospect of Iran getting nukes. Saudis are frightened, Egypt is frightened. The caller was frothing at his mouth about the Jews and how much he hates them no doubt.

  105. 105 Justin from Iowa
    April 25, 2008 at 18:55

    MAD doesn’t work as well with other countries because in unstable countries you don’t know who can get one and use it?! MAD doesnt’ work when it isn’t other countries you are worried about, but groups… like terrorist organizations.

  106. 106 Simon
    April 25, 2008 at 18:57

    This is more of a technical question- What are we doing with all of the nuclear waste. Can’t we shoot it at the sun? We should do that- put all the nuclear waste and all the nuclear weapons on a rocket ship (or a handfull of rocket ships) and blast it at some distant star.
    How far of a stretch is a nuclear bomb from a hellfire missile, a predator drone, bunker busters, ect. ect. My point is that weapons of mass destruction are horrible things even in the most responsible hands.

    Simon in Denver

  107. April 25, 2008 at 18:57

    I see no reason why we can say who can and can’t have nuclear power or weapons. But at the same time people say that we are the only country to have used them during the WWII. If we had not used the atomic bomb. My wife and myself have a very good chance of not being alive as both of our fathers would have been involved in the invasion of Japan. My father as a crewman in a dive bomber and my wife’s dad a lieutenant hitting a beach in Japan. We caused a lot more deaths during fire bombings raids then in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

    Bob in the US

  108. 108 Doug
    April 25, 2008 at 18:58

    The larger point here is not whether but rather should. yes, ok i’m American. But I am one of those “crazy” people who think your technology should be a zero end polluter. There are some remarkable new technologies on how to deal with the waste byproducts of nuclear power generation. But unfortunately these new technoligies have taken nearly 60 years to catch up with the prevailing technology. far from being cheap in the disposal the process by which the disposal takes place completely negates the money saved by the production of the energy to begin with. and studies have yet to completely agree on whether background radiation leeching into the enviroment on a long term basis.
    just because a technology is available does not mean it should be put into use.

  109. April 25, 2008 at 18:58

    Why do most of your American contributors pronounce ‘nuclear’ NUKYULAR??? We all know George Bush does it, but does that mean other Americans have to imitate his stupid-sounding habit? By the way, I am American.


  110. 110 Joel from Texas
    April 25, 2008 at 18:59

    Can anyone on the panel guarantee the veracity of this report? This after all came from the same source that told us about the “huge chemical arsenal” of Iraq.

  111. 111 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 18:59

    @ Anthony

    “Lets all imagine a world where the US, Great Britian, and France didn’t have Nuclear Weapons, and Iran, North Korea, and Syria did. Not a very safe world.

    -Anthony, LA, CA”

    That would surely make all the conspiracy people and socialists all happy for sure.

  112. 112 Joel Salomon
    April 25, 2008 at 19:03

     Shirley: Considering that Japan did not surrender after the first bomb, it seems to me entirely plausible that there was real military necessity.

  113. 113 selena
    April 25, 2008 at 19:05

    Good one guys!

    This is the first time I have been able to listen live. And you know it doesn’t feel the same as when listening to the recording. There is something ethereal about listening with all the others.

    Thanks so much! Visionary that I am, I can see history recording WHYS as the beginning of a different kind of revolution… a world wide revolution of peace.


  114. April 25, 2008 at 19:09

    As long as they can pass the following criteria:

    They can finance it themselves:
    1. The political situation in the country is stable
    2. If these criteria are passed then I personally dont have a problem



  115. 115 John in Salem
    April 25, 2008 at 19:09

    All of the talk on the show and most of the comments on this forum are simply philosophical sophistry and unbelievably short-sighted.
    Countries that have nuclear weapons today can still have them 50 or 100 or 500 years from now regardless of what their governments or societies have evolved into or who may have taken control.
    In the very recent past the USSR was facing down the West with an arsenal of 30,000 hydrogen bombs. One year later their silos were being guarded by people earning the equivalent of $15. a day.
    A fireball engulfing a city filled with millions of people is not an abstract concept.
    Nuclear weapons are insane and make no one safer.

  116. April 25, 2008 at 19:10

    Isn’t the issue the ability to produce nuclear fuel, and the potential crossover of technology in that production? If a country had a nuclear power plant but contracted to purchases nuclear fuel from France, does that country pose any threat? If not, wouldn’t at least a partial answer be for the UN to become the provider of nuclear fuel, with clear provisions that they MUST guarantee continued availability of fuel for any legitimate operating energy plant?

    Scott in the US

  117. April 25, 2008 at 19:13

    hence why they went full scale with their kamikaze program.
    The full-scale kamikaze program was a last resort. Last resorts usually mean you are out of other options and know your pretty much done for, as the Japanese knew at that time, and as the Americans knew. The US just had to ‘finish them off’.

    Either way, the bomb was not the only option the US had. It was the easiest way out while at the same time advancing its arms arsenal and conducting the experiments they were unable to conduct with the fake buildings set up for blast test and shockwave tests… They wanted the ‘full effect’, dead civilians and all.

  118. April 25, 2008 at 19:15

    @ Anthony

    “Lets all imagine a world where the US, Great Britian, and France didn’t have Nuclear Weapons, and Iran, North Korea, and Syria did. Not a very safe world.

    It would be safe… on their terms. Just like the world is ‘safe’ now. On ours.

  119. 119 Nate, Portland OR
    April 25, 2008 at 19:15

    Although addressed at Steve, I’d like to take a stab at Lubna’s Q’s:

    “Are you suggesting that the horrific murdering of tens of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians by the American nuclear bombs in 1945 was justifiable ?!”

    As justifiable as any other act of war. Civilians have died in every war from the beginning of time. Until somebody develops soldier-seeking bullets and bombs its going to happen. Is it better to die of starvation in a siege or from scorched earth policies before the days of modern technology than it is to die from nuclear attack? (and don’t suggest Islamic warfare in the days of Islamic expansion didn’t include loads of civillian casualties from such practices) Is it better to die from conventional bombs than it is to die from nuclear? If a war is just (rarely the case), civilian casualties are in some sense just. They should be minimized, as all civilized people recognize, but they cannot always be avoided. Further, all countries have a greater responsibility to protect their own people, and if actions leading to the death of the enemy’s civilians will save their own civilians the counry in question has some justification for performing those actions. Finally, the line between civilian and soldier is often blurry. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial centers producing weaponry used to attack Americans (as well as Chinese, Koreans and other E Asians). America may have been wrong to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but its not the cut-n-dry case you and others make it out when it is implied that America’s use of nukes was irresponsible and results in their having no moral standing regarding the spread of nuclear weaponry. I think the bombing of Hiroshima was, on balance, justified. It should also be recognized that after the war (in which we were not the aggressor) we re-built Japan and helped facilitate its rise as a peaceful, prosperous nation that has retained its own culture. Does this seem like the action of a bloodthirsty irresponsible people?

    (as an aside, it is fairly clear the second bombing of Japan – Nagasaki – was overkill. I enjoyed the black humor in: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/51542)

    “And do you think that your government really has a moral authority to tell other countries that they’re responsible enough to have nuclear weapons or not ?!”

    This is a far more difficult question. Under the Bush administration its difficult to say the US has such moral authority. Certainly the US alone only has such authority in the condition that another country is threatening to get the weaponry to use it for offensive purposes against the US or its allies. This would include any country that could concievably supply al Queda, and probably Iran.

    Does any country have the moral authority to determine another country’s responsibility? If you answer in the negative then you’re committed to a world where every half cracked tin-pot dictator and their terrorist buddy gets a nuke. If you answer in the affirmative, how is your moral authority criteria different from the current situation? The US is entitled to complain about and sanction anybody it feels threatens it. The rest of the world can abide or not (currently the EU tends to side with the US regarding Iranian and Syrian nukes, while Russia and China do not). So long as nobody stages pre-emptive attacks, its pretty much decided by the collective assessments of the more powerful countries. What would do you think should be different?

    Do you think rising powers such as India and Brazil (which, I believe, has voluntarily not pursued the bomb) will be happy to see nuclear weapons spread all over the ME? Brazil might feel safe by virtue of distance, but I doubt India, with its less than pleasant history with Islamic expansion, will be happy to see nukes in Iranian, Syrian, Libyian, etc hands. The Muslim word’s focus may be Isreal now, but once they get their nukes and deal with Isreal, India and its restive Muslim minority will be tempting indeed…

  120. 120 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 19:15

    @ Shirley

    Bit of advice. Wikipedia isn’t reliable. In 5 minutes I could have that article could be a recipe for lentil soup, or could be about the Green Lantern.

  121. April 25, 2008 at 19:16

    Let’s remember that these allegations are coming from the notorious lying Bush/Cheney Administration and their chorus of liars, remember them and their slam-dunk allegations of WMDs in Iraq?


    Tom in the US

  122. April 25, 2008 at 19:17

    It angers me that the only Iran is pointed out as a threat if they did have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are a threat to mankind no matter who has them. PERIOD.


  123. April 25, 2008 at 19:18

    The “world versus nuclear weapons” argument is a bit like the “America versus right to bear arms” argument. Sure it seems fair that if my neighbor has a gun that I should have one too. The bottom line is that the more guns we have the more dangerous Americans are to each other. It seems to be common knowledge here that even innocent victims who carry guns are more likely to get shot than those who don’t. If my neighbor and I both have guns, the odds have greatly increased that one of us will get shot one day.

    Matt Jernigan
    Cleveland, Ohio

  124. April 25, 2008 at 19:18

    that american is totaly blind and blames the victims of the USA for the state of their country….we have used nuclear weapons on japan and have recently threatened to use them in Iraq.
    why should iran trust us ??? remember the sha and how he got in power ????


  125. April 25, 2008 at 19:19

    Seems to me that the desert regions of the middle east are primed to not only harvest the power of the sun with solar technologies but also create a green economy that could bring these societies much needed work and income.

    If leaders like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are serious about peace and meeting their country’s energy needs by peaceful means, a pursuit of renewables rather than nuclear technology would be a great move.



  126. April 25, 2008 at 19:19

    Inevitably many more nations will become nuclear, either through a desire to produce energy, though more likely seeking nuclear technology for military purposes. The time will come when one such nation will use its reactor to produce weapons grade material and produce warheads to use against their rival/enemy. With present political and ideological standpoints across world not likely to diminish, with so many resentments and scores to settle as well as outright hatred in the world it is not if but when a nuclear weapon will be used against people. It is not enough to say that only responsible or civilised nations be allowed to become or remain nuclear as this status can change easily and who is to say that such a nation has any inherent moral authority considering the state of the world at the present time?

    Anoymous in Australia

  127. April 25, 2008 at 19:19

    Countries are going nuclear at a very slow trickle. Every decade witness a new nuclear armed nation. Unilateral action is truly counter productive. Pakistan, India , North Korea, Israel should be encouraged to dismantle their nuclear weapons. Only diplomatic efforts should be used against Iran and Syria and all other suspected proliferators.

    Frank in Los Angeles

  128. April 25, 2008 at 19:20

    The theory is that it is dangerous to allow belligerent countries to have nuclear capabilities, while non-belligerent nations can be trusted. The problem is, who decides who is belligerent and who is not? George Bush, with his attack on a soverign nation that posed no immediate threat, is not qualified to determine which countries pose a threat by having nuclear weapons.


  129. 129 Ros Atkins
    April 25, 2008 at 19:23

    Hi Ros,
    Romance and gun powder changed the world and has never been stopped AND so is the NUKE.

    “No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms.
    The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

    Lets destroy all nuclear,so that we stop fidgeting and having sleepless nights.

    Togo Kasoro

  130. 130 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 19:25


    “Either way, the bomb was not the only option the US had. It was the easiest way out while at the same time advancing its arms arsenal and conducting the experiments they were unable to conduct with the fake buildings set up for blast test and shockwave tests… They wanted the ‘full effect’, dead civilians and all.”

    You admit it was the easiest way out, hence why it was a no-brainer. Any other alternative would have taken longer and would have cost more lives. Don’t forget, we had conventional bombing raids that caused far more casualties that didn’t end the war. No, they wanted the war to be over. We didn’t ask to get attacked by japan if you can recall, so we had to risk millions of soldiers with an invasion so you could feel less white guilt? Please, that is your grandfather’s generation we’re talking about. You wanted more of them to ge tkilled, AND more japanese so that you can sleep better at night? Read up on the Bombing of tokyo, Hamburg, Dresden, those raids killed more people.

  131. 131 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 19:27

    @ Marie,

    care to provide your proof that the US recently threatened to use nuclear weapons in Iraq or would you care to retract that statement so that you have a thread of credibility?

  132. April 25, 2008 at 19:31

    I don’t understand why Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons and Obama and Clinton and McCain act and speak as if they do not have these capabilities.

    Also, the remark about the horrors visited on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were “just” is absolutely off the wall! This person needs to watch the superb new documentary “White Light, Black Rain.” Crimes against civilian targets are never justified.

    Harry in San Francisco

  133. April 25, 2008 at 19:33

    Shirley my love : I meant using radioactive isotops in radiotherapy, and I totally agree with you honey. It’s so unfortunately that our world is turning into a wild jungle where only the supreme powers think that they have the right to tell others that they’re right or wrong… And hi precious Justin : All WHYSayers are precious to me, and I do love them all no matter how much I agree or disagree with their opinions. To reply to some of your points I say : Murdering innocent civilians anywhere around the world by any kind of weapon (conventional or nuclear), whether committed by the Americans, or the Japanese, or even Martians is unjustifiable crime that can NEVER be forgiven no matter the excuses were. Bless you Precious Justin. With my love. Yours forever, Lubna.

  134. April 25, 2008 at 19:38

    No one should have the weapon.
    Iran isn’t innocent in anyway, but they are not as horrible as propaganda paints them to be. US intelligence said that Iran was NOT pursuing Nuclear Weapons but the rest of the government (plus parts of the world) have just ignored those reports. Truth be told, the USA has been the only country in history to use a big bomb. Twice in fact. I honestly don’t believe that there is another country crazy enough to use it. I think we’ll be the ones to start the nuclear war if it does happen. So Mrs. Clinton’s remarks on Iran earlier this week, along with many other Americans seem as they are trying to enter the US in another Cold War.

    Eliel from Brooklyn

  135. April 25, 2008 at 19:44

    no country has the right to possess nuclear weapons! whether its the u.s. or Iran – no country has the right. As for nuclear power: it is no solution. theres the danger of accidents (remember chernobyl), and even if everything goes well – what about the nuclear waste? African countries should not need to build nuclear power plants, but in stead, the Western countries should invest in the development of green technology (solar power, wind power, water power, bio fuel). the west should help african countries to move in this direction. It is the only way forward.

    Kalypso in Vienna, Austria

  136. April 25, 2008 at 19:45

    The theory is that it is dangerous to allow belligerent countries to have nuclear capabilities, while non-belligerent nations can be trusted. The problem is, who decides who is belligerent and who is not? George Bush, with his attack on a soverign nation that posed no immediate threat, is not qualified to determine which countries pose a threat by having nuclear weapons.

    Stuart in San Francisco

  137. April 25, 2008 at 19:45

    It’s not the fact of right, I think it’s how they are going about doing it. If they are trying to “sneak their study under the UN,” obliviously their intentions are not just for energy use.

    Allan, Ohio

  138. April 25, 2008 at 19:46

    I believe that nuclear weapon or power should be banned world wide. So has to prevent the re occurence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. God help us.

    Ebeiyamba Okon (Ile Ife – Nigeria)

  139. April 25, 2008 at 19:46

    Nations that have proven they can act civilized to other nations should be allowed to develop nuclear technology.


  140. April 25, 2008 at 19:47

    Iran should be a nuclear power because they would never attack israel and it would change the balance of power without a shot being fired. Iran will NEVER attack israel because it is where the messiah will come back to at the end of days.

    Ibrahim abdul-matin
    National Urban Fellow

  141. April 25, 2008 at 19:47

    I disagree with your US speaker that his nation used its nuclear weapon legitimately. It used the bombs when they knew Japan was about to surrender. It used them as they knew Stalin was planning to invade Japan and wanted to show them they have the power and the will to use them. It used them simply because they built them and to a lesser degree to find out what would happen if used against a population. No more of this it ended the war nonsense. They killed more people fire bombing cities and could have continued to do so with impunity until Japan surrendered and not landing on man on Japanese soil before that time!



  142. April 25, 2008 at 19:48

    A country can decide to use nuclear technology if they so choose but all countries including the U.S and it’s allies should be prohibited from nuclear armament.
    “leadership by example”


  143. 143 VictorK
    April 25, 2008 at 19:48

    I’m not surprised at the revisionist posts regarding the nuclear strikes against Japan.

    I thought it might be useful, though, to include a couple of correctives that consider the issue on its merits, rather than as an opportunity for demonising the US, re-writing history or making a martyr out of Hirohito.



    One interesting statistic that the revisionists here might care to respond to: the Japanese, committed militarists and imperialists and undoubted aggressors in WWII, slaughtered between 10 million and 15 million Chinese (without looking into the figures for their other victimes across Asia). But the only condemnation on this blog is for the Americans who ended the Japanese menace!

    A WHYS programme on anti-Americanism is well overdue.

  144. April 25, 2008 at 19:48

    This is really not about “right”, but about responsibility. TOTAL DESARMENMENT is the only way forward! Nuclear energy is no solution. theres the danger of accidents (remember chernobyl), and even if everything goes well – what about the nuclear waste?
    african countries should not need to build nuclear power plants, but in stead, the Western countries should invest in the development of green technology (solar power, wind power, water power, bio fuel). the west should help african countries to move in this direction. It is the only way forward.


  145. April 25, 2008 at 19:49

    Can we not hear this cliched, “we have a right to nuclear power and weapons to act a as a deterrent” anymore? These smaller and third world nations want these weapons not to deter their rivals, but to use on them when they have the opportunity. Nations in the India/Pakistan mode will develop their ambitions and nuke each other as they simply are not stable enough for this responsibiliy nor are they morally constrained.



  146. 146 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 19:49

    @ Tabitha:

    Anti-Palestinian, anit-Muslim, and anti-Arab prejudice already exists too much in the media.


    And anti-Israel, anti-Jew prejudice exists too much at the UN right now. Just yesterday the Libyan deputy ambassador to the UN security council said What israel is doing in Gaza now is WORSE than the nazi concentration camps. I guess that would be accurate if you are a holocaust denier. Remember 1 jewish nation, 30+ muslim nations that always gang up on Israel. Talks of wiping Israel off the map, etc.. Come on… Sorry the BBC allowed someone who wasn’t virulently anti israel on the show. oh wait, they did.

  147. April 25, 2008 at 19:53

    I have a difficult time taking your American guest seriously on his view about nuclear weapons when he is obviously incapable of pronouncing “nuclear”.

    Portland, OR

  148. April 25, 2008 at 19:55

    In response tothe statement “we look at iran BECAUSE OF ITS LEADER” how can anyone trust what the USA is saying and trust its LEADER after the last 5 years of exposed lies…very country has the right o nuclear power, as part of the treaty and weapons as part of self defense..the USA does NOT threaten countries that have nuclear weapons..

    Marie, San Francisco

  149. 149 Joseph Ubek
    April 25, 2008 at 19:55

    I don’t know why we should be so worried about creating and maintaining nuclear fascilities when millions of people in Africa continue to die of Malaria.
    Provision of Clean drinking water is still a problem in many parts of the world and the world continues to fret about the nuke?
    They should be a re-channeling of resources for vital issues i guess.

  150. April 25, 2008 at 19:56

    Nuclear energy is good I am worried about the waste where do we put it..

    Paul Lusaka, Zambia

  151. April 25, 2008 at 19:57

    I think all nations should be banned from nuclear materials starting from those who a pointing out the nations with nuclea programmes.

    Sydney in Zambia

  152. April 25, 2008 at 19:58

    We need it in AFRICA because the continent is rich in oil and minerals. But wrong motives are not needed, some people are wicked minded.

    James in Zambia

  153. April 25, 2008 at 19:58

    Any country is entitled to nuclear facility, it’s not neccesarily a weapon but for domestic use.

    Nelson in Kenya

  154. April 25, 2008 at 20:00

    If USA could be nuclear why other countries shouldn’t? I think each and every country should be allowed to have its own nuclear plant!

    Sani in Nigeria

  155. April 25, 2008 at 20:00

    If humans want to survive as a species, then ALL nuclear weapons have to be dismantled. It doesn’t matter who is good, who is bad, who “deserves” them, who doesn’t, who has done what to whom. It’s just a question of survival, or of guaranteed destruction of ALL life on the planet except for the cockroaches if these weapons are ever used. There isn’t any “right” to nuclear weapons. How could there be a “right” to destroy all life? It’s a useless concept. There is only blind stupidity or a willingness to consider finding new ways to co-exist.

    Hayden Ellis

  156. April 25, 2008 at 20:01

    I disagree with your guest the US has been using nuclear arms since 1945. We just haven’t dropped them on anyone else. The Soviets have used them as well. The threat of them is the same as using them.


  157. April 25, 2008 at 20:02

    Why make something if you don’t use it Americans ooh please!


  158. April 25, 2008 at 20:03

    The pre-occupation of the world with “right to this and right to that” is not helping our collective good.
    Considering that nuclear weapons can wipe us out of the face of the earth, every one should not have it. Imagine if Saddam had it during his war with Iran, what would have happened? This “right” issue is what is allowing lots of things that ordinarily would not be acceptable. Men are marrying men, children are not being spanked when they misbehave, people have right to abortion at will (not necessarily when mum’s life is in danger) etc. I do not think every nation has a right to nuclear arms. Nuclear energy for civilian use…yes, but not weapon.

    Lagos, Nigeria.

  159. April 25, 2008 at 20:03

    did i really hear the commentator say -after the ugly american from nj said “oh please” when someone brought up the FACT that the US was the only country in the world to use nuclear weapons – did he really say that we’ll leave aside the question of whether the bombing of hiroshima was really a nuclear weapon?

    the discussion was so divorced from a balanced or healthy world view that it became painful to listen to. probably be quite some time before i bother tuning in to the program again.

  160. April 25, 2008 at 20:04

    It is irresponsible to allow countries that intends to destroy others to own it.

    Uwalakav in Nigeria

  161. April 25, 2008 at 20:04

    Every nation has the right protect itself, therefore possessing nuclear weapons is necessary by every country.

    Nasir in Nigeria

  162. April 25, 2008 at 20:05

    IAEA shouldn t allow that,the world needs peace now.

    Sunday in Nigeria

  163. 163 green
    April 25, 2008 at 20:08

    i would realy hav asked to know which of the those african countries are requeting a right for nuclear power?how many of them can boast of stayin a year without major crisis on abundant natural resources like food and water.i think any african country that is asking such,it is either the leaders have gone mad or crazy.green.u.s.

  164. 164 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 20:11

    @ Marie

    Argentina went war with nuclear armed britain over the Falkland islands. The nuclear weapons did’t stop Argentina from taking over the Islands. And it’s not exactly like the US hasn’t been fighting against nuclear armed nations before. Though druing the Korean war China didn’t have nuclear weapons, the Soviets were arming NK and China, and the US directly fought against China. In Vietnam, US Pilots were fighting against Soviet pilots flying for the Vietnamese. The Israelis did the same as soviet pilots would fight in arab air forces to get experience.

  165. 165 steve
    April 25, 2008 at 20:14

    I have a difficult time taking your American guest seriously on his view about nuclear weapons when he is obviously incapable of pronouncing “nuclear”.

    Portland, OR

    That again is a wee bit elitist there Jason. Do you not take people seriously who don’t pronounce Oregon correctly? You know, “ore eh gone”, the incorrect way? I’m sure that’s how the BBC people would pronounce it. Do I hold people in lower regard if they cannot pronounce Maryland correctly? I mean, after all, it’s my home, I was born there, and I’ve never heard anyone on the BBC pronounce it right, yet I don’t look down on them, and I don’t question their credibility based upon pronunciation.

  166. 166 viola anderson
    April 25, 2008 at 20:15

    Well, as someone once said after the first bomb was detonated, “Everything has changed except human beings.”

    It is every nation’s right to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes. It is not every nation’s right to develop nuclear weapons. It is especially not the right of those nations that are unable or unwilling to understand the consequences of using such weapons in today’s world.

    The United States used atomic weapons to end a war and has never used one since. Any atomic weapon used today would be to start a war, a war that would not see a country (as happened in Japan) recover and become prosperous.

    The world knows and has said that proliferation of nuclear weapons is NOT ACCEPTABLE . That means that the WORLD, not just the United States and Israel, has a vested interest in preventing that from happening.

  167. 167 Ronald Cline
    April 25, 2008 at 21:36

    Every country may have the right to a nuclear power plant, but, can they handle the responsibility? Having worked in nuclear energy for years, it’s no easy job to maintain one of these very complicated power stations. The first problem many countries will have is finding people to operate the plant. Most third-world countries do not have the educational system to produce the exceptionally highly-skilled technicians and engineers needed. Chernobyl was an avoidable mistake. We don’t need another one of those. Secondly, countries with unstable infrastructures just shouldn’t have this kind of expensive and hard-to-manage machinery. Losing your ex-patriot workforce overnight because of a perceived problem could be catastrophic. Most people don’t realize that the fuel in a reactor is relatively safe and well-controlled. The waste that a reactor produces is lethal and must be handled properly. My concern is that many unstable governments would use these reactor sites as leverage for more insane demands and threats of killing their own populations.
    Having trained other countries military forces in the 80’s and 90’s, I can tell you that this technology is well beyond the grasp of many countries. They may want the technology, but, they can’t handle teh responsibility.

  168. 168 John Debba
    April 25, 2008 at 22:25

    Steve- “I can tell you are referring to Israel. Israel has had nuclear weapons since the 1960s, has never used them, nor does it threaten to wipe nations off the Map, like their wonderful neighbors have done so many times over the yeras.”

    True, Israel has not directly threatened to use nuclear weapons against its neighbors. But neither have Israel’s neighbors explicitly said they would use nuclear weapons (when or if produced) against Israel. Nonetheless, Israel does have nuclear weapons and uses type of language, communications or policy that its neighbors perceive equally threaten.

    Almost 25 years after June 5th, 1967 war; from memoirs of some the Israeli leadership and general staff, it is known Israel would have used nuclear weapons (possessed three at the time) if the “preemptive” attack failed. Then again, in 1973 war, when Israel appeared close to defeat. This Israeli nuclear threat was the reason for Nixon’s massive non-stop airlift of weapons to Israel; Which depleted America’s military reserves of planes, tanks and other war material, in a time when the Cold War was only a tiny spark away from hot war.

    Every country has a right to civilain nuclear power, whether we like them or not. IMHO: The best and only soultion for a nuclear weapon free Middle East would be for ALL parties not to posses any nuclear weapons.

    regards, john debba

  169. 169 Justin from Iowa
    April 25, 2008 at 22:33


    I very much respect your stand that civilians should not be targets of war. Honorable and good people would not do such a thing, but in a world full of honorable and good people there would be no war, period.

    But the world is not full of honorable and good people, it is full of both good and evil people, honorable and dishonorable, and misguided and misled people as well. It is my heartfelt belief that war is wrong. But that does not mean that it won’t happen. If someone tries to take from me my life, my liberty, my family… or take that from someone else, they must be stopped.

    For the world war II, there would have been rivers of blood invading Japan. Death death and more death awaited. Was dropping the bombs right, justified, moral? Was it better than the rivers of blood to be had in invading japan? we will never know, we only have history to judge. The war ended after the bombs were dropped. No more firebombing cities. And america helped to rebuild, to pay its obligation for what it had unleashed.

    Was America right? Did it feel remorse? I now ask, if the countries of the middle east with a will to use nuclear weapons acquired them, would they feel remorse at their use? Would they use them only with regret, would they extend the hand of friendship after they had used them? Help rebuild what they had destroyed?

  170. 170 Anil Hardit-Singh
    April 25, 2008 at 22:39

    For the most part nations with military might are socially primitive…. the US is to date the only nation to actually deploy a nuclear bomb on a civilian target…..the single most horrific act in our history. If ‘they’ can be so quick to act and slow to understand then there leaves little room for extremists.
    Even today, Hilary Clinton quickly states that the US has the power to obliterate Iran. What would be her response if the question were reversed ie ” If Israel should bomb Iran how should the US respond?” Suddenly ….investigations, reasons, diplomacy or even rationalization of such action would be the convenient order of the day.
    Not one nation should be allowed to have this ‘lethal power of God’.
    It’s unfortunate that our own western self-righteousness and arrogance give us the ‘right’ to have such power. We shouldn’t… no one should.

  171. April 26, 2008 at 03:13

    Man sorry I missed this one,

    AWW, ain’t it cute. A bunch of us monkey’s all sitting around trying to decide who has the right to throw stones.

    First, We are talking about implements designed and used to kill men, women, and children indiscriminately. One of which can kill millions immediately and many more over the course of years. I don’t know what religion, creed, or philosophy the debaters follow, but I don’t know any healthy ones that would condone such disregard for human life.

    Secondly, since Einstein proved E=mc^2 the stage was set. Whether it takes 10 years or 100 years. All of these nations that have leader that want a nuclear program will get it. There really isn’t much that can be done to stop it.

    Last, those who say the US has not threatened anybody with their weapons should recall the US administration and all the controversy with the current administration. Many of its members, including the president, say, “there is no option off the table when dealing with Iran.” This was in a response to a nuclear strike question. One of the current candidates recently said she would “obliterate Iran.’ That is threatening if I ever heard it. Imagine if you live in, had family in, or knew people in that country or as nuclear fallout goes, in surrounding countries.

    Until we monkeys evolved beyond the need for nuclear materials, the threat to MAD will exist.

  172. 172 drew in oregon
    April 26, 2008 at 06:39

    Questions of ‘right’ and ‘responsibility’ will not matter when law and order break down. Keep in mind that there are many weapons– conventional, political, media-based, economic, acculturation, etc– which are equally dangerous and require containment.

    As we watch oil prices rise to $120 a barrel and food prices rise, is there any question why a country would be desperate to acquire nuclear energy? At the same time, civil unrest spreads around the world and in light of an uncertain world order, every country would be wise to secure nuclear arms as a deterrent. I cannot fault them for this. Any country that does not develop nuclear weapons will have little bargaining power unless they can find ‘some other means’, to paraphrase on often-quoted definition of war.

    Of course there is a double-standard when it comes to western powers– western power currently dominates the world. This should not come as a surprise to anyone. Nor should it be surprising that many countries disagree with the current political landscape, and are working to destabilize it. Focusing on issues of nuclear proliferation, it is likely that the west, particularly the U.S., will be blind to the other weapons being used against it, quietly and subtly.

    The struggling US economy is a direct result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The ripple effect was simply delayed– managed– by the U.S. to avoid the appearance of weakness. The US workforce cannot employ the 150,000 soldiers and the 100,000+ contractors working in Iraq or Afghanistan. Just an example of other, more dangerous weapons worth discussing.

  173. 173 Emile Barre
    April 26, 2008 at 12:52

    Nuclear energy is an alternative source of power for peaceful means. Today however it seems that when any country other than those considered “trustworthy” by the “conventional” owners of that commodity such as the US France UK etc is immediately suspected of wanting it to trigger a war or world war. That is the ultimate in paranoid thinking and the logic of it if followed through to its fruition is a world on the edge of an abyss when most of the world who aspire to nuclear power are deemed to be terrorists or aspiring to terrorism. Nuclear energy as the recent decision in the UK to buy French nuclear technology to install a new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK,is a perfectly legitimate source of power which any government should have a right to own. In the Middle East, for example, Israel has had nuclear energy for peaceful and military means ie nuclear weapons for years. There is nothing special about Israel it is a country like any other to those who have a logical mind unless discrimination and second class citizenry is to be the guiding factor for world leaders.

  174. 174 Shirley
    April 26, 2008 at 14:03

    Viola, you are incorrect. The U.S. has had a policy of using depleted uranium in Iraq and in other places.

  175. 175 CarlosK
    April 26, 2008 at 14:55


    I don’t practice to beat around the bush- I cut to the chase.

    It doesn’t matter how much we spin it. The two primary nations causing world tension are USA and Israel. And they are both nuclear.

    But when you really go down to the root it is all abouit retaining white supremacy. Not necessarily that only white countries be nuclear but that white countries decide who is nuclear.

    Until we stop seeing people through tinted/coloured lenses, this world will never be safe. Because it is inevitable that Israel and USA’s enemy the muslims will acquire nuclear bomb sooner or later or there will be another war soon orchestrated by either Israel or USA to prevent a muslim country from being nuclear.

    World tension is only going to intensify more and more every day, it is not going to get better here because the “horse has already bolted the gate” in other world the game called world peace is coded (as in dominoes) and no one can win and the players have no idea that no one can win and they are all wasting their time!

    We are only reaping what we have sowed. The harvest is bitter I know but the USA had many opportunities to make the world a better place and she squander them all because she refused to judge people based on the contents of their character instead of the colour of their skin.

  176. 176 Les
    April 26, 2008 at 17:01

    Why shouln’t Syria, Iran, N. Korea have nuclear capability?

    One simple word – responsibility. These countries have shown time after time that they cannot be trusted, that they are not responsible both in regards to the world community at large, and towards their own people.

    The reason America is making so much noise about Syria and Iran is not because they should be denied nuclear capability but more the point that they would at some point in the future, use the technology against another goverment, state or country.

    Be that directly or indirectly through a third party such as a terrorist group. I can’t speak for anyone else but personally I don’t like the feeling of hearing about an American city being flattened by an Iranian bomb simply because we all know what the response from the American administration would be…

    So we must do what we can to reduce the threat, and if that means putting pressure on Iran then lets get on with it. The quicker we sort out Syria and Iran, then the quicker we can all breath a sigh of relief.

  177. 177 steve
    April 26, 2008 at 17:46

    @ John Debba

    “Almost” only counts in horseshoes and hand grendades. Fact is, Israel has nukes, and that still doesn’t stop the arabs from attacking Israel on a constant basis. Perhaps if Israel took up the Iranian tactic of threatening to wipe nations off the map, or the arab tactic of threatening to turn the mediterranean red with blood the attacks might stop?

  178. 178 RAV
    April 26, 2008 at 21:36

    No nation should have nuclear weapons capability & those that are so-armed should disarm for the safety of us all. This will not happen as nations fear each other & will develop & retain nuclear capabilities aout of fear & the admitedly workable notion of Mutually Assurred Destruction (MAD) which worked when the USA & USSR were engaged in the Cold War. Will this work when the nations are Israel & Iran? Or India & Pakistan? No Nation should develop & use nuclear power plants but eventually all must as conventional petroleum & natural gas supplies are depleted. Iran for example does not have many decades of petroleum left. What does it & other power-hungry nations do when they have no petroleum-based power? The alternatives are either very bad polluters ie coal-fired power plants which are proliferating in China & India to the detriment of their citizens and to the rest of us, “Clean” power from wind powered , hydro-powered tidal-powered turbines, solar-powered electrical generators are simply not able to provide enough power in a consistant manner to suffice. Reduction of power use is not working, quite the opposite is happening given the increasing population & the increasing demand for power by all nations. Nuclear power is the only source of power that fulfills the need. Can we survive the demand for power – electrical & otherwise? I’m not optomistic about our chances. Are you?

  179. 179 John Debba
    April 27, 2008 at 22:25

    “Almost” only counts in horseshoes and hand grendades”.

    Cute, Steve, but just FYI, I was a Marine and fought in Vietnam, so your cute saying is aged and whacked. What I said, “Almost 25 years after June 5th, 1967 war” not, 25 tears ago “almost” used nuclear weapon. As far as Israeli government leadership and general staff were concerned, the use of nuclear weapons was a done deal. Nonetheless I cannot think of anywhere else where the “almost” use of nuclear weapon counts more than in “horseshoes and hand grenades”

    The subject matter concerns a nation’s right to nuclear power. My answer was affirmative for civilian use, notwithstanding the perception of friendly or hostile. OMT: I am not an Arab apologist but neither am I baffled by an Israel apologists.

    regards, john debba

  180. 180 Omunyaruguru
    April 28, 2008 at 09:31

    My country, Uganda, is currently contemplating use of nuclear sources for energy. No body has complained yet, because we are transparent about what we want to do and we do not pose a threat to world peace and stability. ALL countries have the right to go Nuclear, but somebody has to take on the role of monitor to ensure that no body abuses/misuses their nuclear abilities

  181. 181 Marahdja
    April 28, 2008 at 11:53

    In my opinion, every country should have the right to develop nuclear technologies and exploit it among other things as source of energy and weapons. So far, there’s an obvious inequality in the manner the international community has been dealing with the nuclear issue. Some countries ( such as US, China, Israel) are allowed to develop it for various purposes including the production of mass destruction weapons, why would others ( Iran, North Korea) be prevented from doing so ?
    I understand that nuclear ability can lead to exceptionally grave disasters if used to produce mass destruction weapons. Well, If this is really a concern for all nations on earth, then every nation including US, China, Israel should renounce to and destroy all their nuclear weapons. Any other approach is unfair and justify the moral right for nations to seek nuclear powers as weapons to defend themselves and protect their interests against those who claim the right to own such technologies. Matter of fact, if Iraq under Saddam did have nuclear weapons to fight back, the US would never invade their territory and mess it up like they did.
    As far as peaceful development, if we ever reach the previous demilitarization stage, then I would agree to have an internal watchdog to monitor those activities and prevent a return to the present situation.

  182. 182 Ros Atkins
    April 28, 2008 at 13:02

    Hi Ros,

    Maybe those who were there during the second war have for gotten what such mass of destruction can do human beings. I wonder why some countries donŽt want to live with an enemy. This is the reason why many countries have opted to have nuclear weapons in order to defend themselves if acted. Its has nothing to do with want to have nuclear but the threats made some super powers have caused this race of these deadly weapons.


  183. 183 Ros Atkins
    April 28, 2008 at 13:19

    The countries which possess nuclear weapons should destroy them. All nuclear plants which are poorly unguarded or maintained are potential terrorist weapons. Food and water are compromised everywhere while gaining nuclear capability.

  184. 184 tomasbc10
    April 28, 2008 at 17:27

    In Britain the nuclear lobby has for decades been deceiving the public about the true cost of building,maintaining and closing the nuclear reactors.
    Our governments have lied to us consistently about the cost of disposing of the waste radioactive material and few of us realise how hazardous the work of extracting the uranium fuel is-according to one estimate leukemia cases are as high as 50% for the miners in the African Urananium mines .Cases of leukemia are disproporionately high amongst families living nearby facilities such as the Aldermaston weapons research facility in Berkshire,U.K.,where the warheads for the trident missiles are made.Many thousands of people have died in the aftermath of Chernobil,Ukraine and many more have cancers as a direct result.
    In Britain we are told that we need nuclear power to meet our energy needs but that is just propaganda from the nuclear lobby who have a vested interest with the government in building more reactors to produce more weapons-grade plutonium to make more warheads for the so-called nuclear deterentFew of us are aware that in 2002 the then secretary of state Geoff Hoon changed the law to make it theoretically possible for the u.k. to launch a first strike.No wonder president Putin of Russia is getting worried about the plans for the so-called ‘son of star wars’weapons shield.
    Britaish and American,French,Russian and Chinese foreign policies are all heavily influenced by our nuclear capabilities and it could be argued that since 2002 Britain has joined America in becoming a nuclear aggressor.
    International law outlaws WMD and sooner or later our governments will have to disarm.We’re all much more awake now and for the first time ever the peace-movement was mobilised before an out break of hostilities.
    Have faith that it was not in vain that Jesus gave us the prayer”…God,s will be done ON EARTH as in HEAVEN”
    Presumably not even Gerge Bush would imagine that nuclear weapons exist in Heaven!

  185. 185 Oyekunle via email
    April 28, 2008 at 17:57

    Dear BBC,

    Gretings, to all humanity, every country around the God Almighty has the right to nuclear materials, wisdom and other country could give other country such knowledge, the only thing that we need to do is to make sure, that the wisdom our last generation get in 1945, after going through two world wars is requested, from our creator, who already give us, but we are not the type that is trying to learn from our mistake.

    the United, Nations has to be incharge of the world Uranium waste disposal sites around the world, should we all be looking forward to the next 3008 on this planet, as at today we have 52 countries already with his uranium waste, in unknown locations, that is even not known to the World Health Organisation,(WHO), till the day we all wake up from sleep and found out one country some where has dump its uranium waste in the ocean then the United Nations Secretary-general, emergency shall start, please, we have people around our world with God Almighty given wisdom, they may not be educated, but their wisdom could assist our generation. interesting to know that all of us must be ready for problem we are trying to bring, to the suffering of many people around the world,, please, let us know where the disposal sites of all uranium waste are around the world from the WHO, and the United Nations shall assist by the formation of the “UNITED NATIONS URANIUM WASTE MANAGEMENT AGENCY,(IUWMA), as the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria, but with a duty of keeping the deport of the Uranium waste around the world.

    All countries of the world has the right to use Uranium materials in their nuclear power plans, but where shall we all keep the waste, that should be under the control of the United Nations, Security Council member countries, please.

    The interest of the uranium in power generation around many countries is because of its output not for the health of their people.

    There are other means of generating power like, windmill, solar, dam, encouragement shall be given to many countries in this aspect in order to be thinking of the health of people and the entire humanity, please.

    Many thanks for your kind attention that is appreciative.
    God Almighty, blessing to us all, Amen.
    Abuja, Nigeria.

  186. 186 jaimesal
    April 29, 2008 at 01:06

    Nuclear energy is a product that can be obtained from natural resource and technology. What for? In principle it should be used for the benefit of humanity. The fact that it can be used for upgrading the military power of a country is a very delicate matter which has to do with how trustable the government of that country is that it will be used for the benefit of humankind. And how this can be judged? In theory one way of doing it would be by a neutral transnational organisation. Is there now a mechanism that can guarantee this?. At first sight one would think that UN should accomplish this role, although it might be a controversial matter because the neutrality attribute might be challenged.
    So, should UN do something so as to guarantee neutrality in this respect? Perhaps……I would like to read some opinion about this……

  187. 187 yanyo
    November 23, 2009 at 14:57

    we know that America alsways supports isreal for all its operations whether it is right or wrong and also isreal has nuclear bomb and america makes no answer. so America always talks about iran, suria and other countries in world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: