previous
- J. Robert Oppenheimer
The movie implies and the book states that this is the case. While this is a benefit in the need to feed and defend against predators, it is also shown that since the beginning man has turned these tools against himself far to often.
As evolution progressed and man gradually became master of a great many things perhaps it was inevitable that he would eventually hold the power to eliminate not only his enemies but himself as well.
Nuclear Weapons give man this power.
This is not meant to be a technical treatment of the proliferation issue. I purposely avoid in-depth knowledge of the technical details of nuclear weapons. My knowledge is limited basically to the Manhattan project which stems from a past historical interest in WW2. It is from this that the above quote comes, torn (perhaps not accurately) from my memory.
I am against nuclear weapons. I would gladly join any protest against their use and development. Unfortunately our world is not a place where they will soon die out. Perhaps it is inate that we should want power and prestige and nuclear weapons are inevitable. I hope this is not so and that they will eventually be eliminated.
But the question that needs to be addressed is if nuclear power plants can exist to the exclusion of nuclear weapons. The answer is most emphatically yes.
As a defense I present my home country, Canada.
At the end of World War 2 with the world just entering the cold war Canada was in possesion of the world's second largest Nuclear infrastructure (to the United States). Canada was the second country to operate a Nuclear Reactor (again to the U.S.). We have an ample domestic supply of Uranium.
Yet to this very day, despite an active civilian program (currently 17 operating reactors), Canada is not one of the worlds "nuclear powers". This is obviously not due to any technical problems...if Canada wanted nuclear weapons it could do so with far greater ease than most countries. It is a moral decision...perhaps one that can be a blueprint to the world, that decides on the use of a technology for good rather than evil.
Of course I am not naive enough to believe that all countries who would be in possesion of a nuclear plant would be benevolent enough to follow this blueprint. But when considering domestic use of Nuclear Power in Canada the result is a no-brainer.
The next tier would consist of countries such as the United States and Great Britain who have established nuclear weapons programs. These are military controled programs quite seperate, at least in the majority, from civilian nuclear programs. There is little to be gained by combining the two technologies into one protestable lump merely because they share an atomic birthright...after all Cain was different than Able and your big toe has little practicle resemblance to the thumb!
The third tier is newly developing nuclear programs (Iran for example) where the motives are unclear. The solution: allow it on condition of on-site supervision by independent auditors from the IAEA. This is especially daunting in today's world and perhaps not immediately acheivable. But a recognition of the environmental importance of nuclear power should be made and cooperation between the worlds authorities could concievably be acheived to allow such a program...backed up by suitable reprecussions for violating any agreements might be able to be worked out.