The future is nuclear

In his 1964 movie, "Dr. Strangelove or: How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb," director Stanley Kubrick shows us events that could have concluded the Cuban Missile Crisis. In the film, a rogue army general plans to wage a nuclear war against communist Russia over fears they are putting fluoride in the American water supply. \nAlthough the film was released 40 years ago -- at a time when Cold War tensions between the world's largest nuclear powers were high -- we can still apply Kubrick's satirical analysis of the situation to the current political climate.\nCountries seek to acquire nuclear technology for several reasons. One of these is the prestige that comes with being identified as a nuclear power. Nuclear threats are also often used as a deterrent against aggressive nations, especially when basic diplomatic practices fail. If Iraq was a nuclear threat, as stated by the U.S. government, it might have chosen to use its weapons of mass destruction as a response to the U.S. invasion.\nThis idea was reinforced in a symposium titled "Nuclear Proliferation in Asia: The Roots of the Problem and Possible Solutions" Thursday in the Persimmon Room at the Indiana Memorial Union. Many speakers expressed the view that nuclear proliferation was inevitable and banning testing would not slow the spread of nuclear capability. \nManagement of nuclear proliferation, over current prohibitive practices, is a progressive way of addressing a 50-year-old problem. In the long run, nuclear fuel may be the only solution to the world's looming energy problems and furthermore, nuclear arms' trading has contributed to the rehabilitation of lax economies all over the world. Perhaps what world leaders are failing to understand is the proposal being made by the rest of the world: either we all get nukes or no one gets any nukes.\nIn February of this year, President George W. Bush stated that "proliferation (of weapons of mass destruction) cannot be tolerated." Just under two years ago, Bush joined Russian President Vladimir Putin in signing a treaty that reduced the nuclear weapons stockpiles of both countries to their "lowest level in decades." This will decrease the number of warheads each nation has to between 1,700 and 2,200, according to the White House Web site.\nIf we compare this with 2001 and 2003 figures on the Arms Control Association and Nuclear Threat Initiative Web sites (www.armscontrol.org and www.nti.org), Russia and United States have approximately 6,094 and 7,295 active strategic warheads, respectively. China, the United Kingdom and France have between 200 and 500 warheads each. Estimates for alleged 'nuclear threats' such as India and Pakistan are far lower -- somewhere between 25 to 100 warheads each. \nFormer Costa Rican president, Oscar Arias, tried to bring the issue to the attention of the world community. Arias, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1987, stated that the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council were the main nuclear arms suppliers of the world by the 1990s. The Security Council is comprised of France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia and the People's Republic of China. All these countries throw about considerable weight in council decisions because they have veto power. \nIt should also be noted that the major nuclear powers of the world, with the exception of France and China, signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963. China was in the test stages of developing its first atom bomb and detonated its first atomic device in 1964 prompting the signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by 98 nations. France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel, along with other countries conducting nuclear research refused to sign the treaty setting a terrible precedent. \nThe emergence of North Korea and, increasingly, Iran as possible nuclear threats should force us to realize that the proliferation of nuclear weapons is inevitable. The world community needs to accept the fact that in 50 years nuclear weapons will still be around and their management will be a more constructive effort than non-proliferation. Of course, there is always the possibility of confrontation. However, if the world community places reasonable limits on a country's stockpiles and encourages political engagement over aggression, the reasons for use of nuclear weapons will be limited as well.