November 8, 2011

Who's the nuclear danger?


Lots of dramatic articles and reports again in newspapers and on websites about Iran's nuclear program and the fact that they would now have the capability to build an atomic bomb.

Once again Iran is seen as an undoubted danger and a most obvious problem in this respect. Yet when we skip the rhetorics and ideologies and try to base our predictions on our knowledge of previous events in history, we can only conclude on thing: so far the United States has still been the only country to ever use atomic bombs (and not just one, but two in a row!).[1] To make matters even worse: they were of no use at all. The result of the second world war had already been decided and it was not as if the Japanese army - let alone the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - formed an otherwise invincible threat.

So I keep wondering, why does the US constantly show the threatening finger to any other country that might come close to building nuclear weapons while it is the only country that has so far proven capable of using them?

On top of it, in 2009 the US possessed 5,113 warheads operationally deployed, in active reserve, or held in inactive storage.[2]"

Admittedly, in a prominent 2009 speech Barack Obama declared that he would invalidate the Bush-era policy for use of nuclear weaponsand he even signed a new START treaty with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on April 8, 2010 to reduce the number of active nuclear weapons from 2,200 to 1,550.[3] But so far I haven't heard of much progress on the outcome of this treaty, and even when it would be enacted, their nuclear weapons would still vastly outnumber those of any other country.

I am of course opposed to any country anywhere building any type of nuclear weapon, but tell me, why would the only country that ever showed the potential of using them allowed to have more than 1500 and others none?

No comments:

Post a Comment