After the tsunami of the Japanese nuclear plants, every country in the world has to question the wise use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes.
Nuclear power in a third world country is the worst idea for peaceful use of such energy. They do not have the expertise to handle disasters, they do not value their own people in ways that would require prudent thinking in the way these reactors are placed in relation to populous.
There are many, many considerations when nuclear power is employed rather than alternatives energies. Even Russia, when it comes to Chernobyl, has to admit the civilian population was effected. Three Mile Island in the USA was a huge event requiring 'rethink' of all the measures to contain disasters.
The paradigm for using nuclear power for peaceful purposes has to be re-standardized. The IAEA has to place higher priorities on human life should a disaster occur on every country on the globe.
The Japanese tsunami, no different than Chernobyl, will be polluting the oceans for decades if not centuries. It is not acceptable. At all! The oceans provide valuable service to people from every country, especially Third World Countries. It is not acceptable in any way to pollute the oceans with such toxic materials as occur with nuclear reactor accidents. It is not acceptable to devalue human life and their food sources for the sake of nuclear energy.
Iran is not one of the five nations accepted in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, so the idea they would seek nuclear weapons as a means to provide some kind of security to their nation is wrong. It is just wrong.
It is wrong in the worst way because it opens the Iranian people to danger in simply being a country with nuclear weapon capacity. Iran does not even have to use the weapons to be a target. When inflammatory speech comes from a nuclear power prepared to kill other people with nuclear weapons that is incentive enough to seek prevention in whatever way necessary.
Does China? Russia? France? The United Kingdom use inflammatory speech in regard their nuclear stockpiles? Absolutely not. Why? Because they do not even admire their nuclear stockpiles anymore as a means to protect their people. It is not a means to protect a nation, it is a means to destroy vast numbers of people.
The only time the USA touted their nuclear capacity as a weapon of choice was when idiots like Bush / Cheney were too scared for engaging in illegal wars that they used the nuclear capacity of the USA as a back drop. Never before or since has the USA used the nuclear stockpiles as a back drop to aggression around the globe.
Long before any nation's leader touts their nuclear stockpiles as a weapon of choice while engaging inflammatory speech there needs to be a clear understanding as to their ability to control such outcomes. Inflammatory speech from a nation intent on using nuclear capacity and in the case of Pakistan, India, North Korea and potentially Iran they are doing ILLEGALLY. There is a global understanding these countries, including Israel, contain nuclear capacity illegally.
I remind there were countries with nuclear weapon capacity that have removed their stockpiles.
What nations? Just Libya?
Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, South Africa
Ohhh, we forgot about them. We forgot how prudent decisions to stand down from nuclear capacity took place with leaders of many countries. They didn't want to be a target and / or their political stability was in question.
Non-proliferation is the only way to peace and stability in every country in the world. It is the only way we should value nuclear ability either peaceful or weapons. It is the only way we should seek to love our children's security today and in future.
Nuclear ability of a nation is not an asset, it is a danger.
Nuclear power in a third world country is the worst idea for peaceful use of such energy. They do not have the expertise to handle disasters, they do not value their own people in ways that would require prudent thinking in the way these reactors are placed in relation to populous.
There are many, many considerations when nuclear power is employed rather than alternatives energies. Even Russia, when it comes to Chernobyl, has to admit the civilian population was effected. Three Mile Island in the USA was a huge event requiring 'rethink' of all the measures to contain disasters.
The paradigm for using nuclear power for peaceful purposes has to be re-standardized. The IAEA has to place higher priorities on human life should a disaster occur on every country on the globe.
The Japanese tsunami, no different than Chernobyl, will be polluting the oceans for decades if not centuries. It is not acceptable. At all! The oceans provide valuable service to people from every country, especially Third World Countries. It is not acceptable in any way to pollute the oceans with such toxic materials as occur with nuclear reactor accidents. It is not acceptable to devalue human life and their food sources for the sake of nuclear energy.
Iran is not one of the five nations accepted in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, so the idea they would seek nuclear weapons as a means to provide some kind of security to their nation is wrong. It is just wrong.
It is wrong in the worst way because it opens the Iranian people to danger in simply being a country with nuclear weapon capacity. Iran does not even have to use the weapons to be a target. When inflammatory speech comes from a nuclear power prepared to kill other people with nuclear weapons that is incentive enough to seek prevention in whatever way necessary.
Does China? Russia? France? The United Kingdom use inflammatory speech in regard their nuclear stockpiles? Absolutely not. Why? Because they do not even admire their nuclear stockpiles anymore as a means to protect their people. It is not a means to protect a nation, it is a means to destroy vast numbers of people.
The only time the USA touted their nuclear capacity as a weapon of choice was when idiots like Bush / Cheney were too scared for engaging in illegal wars that they used the nuclear capacity of the USA as a back drop. Never before or since has the USA used the nuclear stockpiles as a back drop to aggression around the globe.
Long before any nation's leader touts their nuclear stockpiles as a weapon of choice while engaging inflammatory speech there needs to be a clear understanding as to their ability to control such outcomes. Inflammatory speech from a nation intent on using nuclear capacity and in the case of Pakistan, India, North Korea and potentially Iran they are doing ILLEGALLY. There is a global understanding these countries, including Israel, contain nuclear capacity illegally.
I remind there were countries with nuclear weapon capacity that have removed their stockpiles.
What nations? Just Libya?
Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, South Africa
Ohhh, we forgot about them. We forgot how prudent decisions to stand down from nuclear capacity took place with leaders of many countries. They didn't want to be a target and / or their political stability was in question.
Non-proliferation is the only way to peace and stability in every country in the world. It is the only way we should value nuclear ability either peaceful or weapons. It is the only way we should seek to love our children's security today and in future.
Nuclear ability of a nation is not an asset, it is a danger.
