Comments on Global Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Go to EmpyreAdd a commentGo to Global Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Actually, chris2303,

a lot has changed.  There are far more players, instead of the usual two-major and a few minor powers keeping tabs on one another and the world.  The breakup of the Soviet Union provided a host of new potential nuclear powers, not just the Russians.   The push for independence of regions around the world has provided a host of new regimes and governments to contend with.  The rise of ultra-militant Islam and a legion of guerilla warlords throughout the world has increased the demand for a tactical nuclear device. 

On a technical level, nuclear devices are smaller, more compact, deadlier, easier to handle and transport, no longer needing ballistic or ICBMs or long-range bombers to reach their intended target. 

The one thing that hasn't changed, chris2303, is the rampant stupidity employed by the powers-that-be to deny proliferation.  International diplomacy would actually be a great thing, a major tool to be used in restricting nuclear weapon testing, building, stockpiling, and obtaining -- if it were used.  Threatening nations with economic sanctions and military intervention seem to be the only two types of "diplomacy" most countries engage in. 

posted by saul_relative on April 2, 2005 at 8:19 AM | link to this | reply

saul_relative
Basically then, nothing's changed since the end of World War 2.

posted by chris2303 on April 2, 2005 at 6:12 AM | link to this | reply