Nuclear Stables
Published in Le Temps
(Canada ) on 14 April 2010
by Luis Lema (link to original)
Neither the fall of the Soviet Empire nor the September 11th attacks were able to do it. Despite several unsuccessful terrorist attempts, it was not until today that the international community, under the leadership of Barack Obama, resolved to seriously examine the risks presented by nuclear weapons and their acquisition by criminal gangs and terrorist networks.
Responsibility in this matter should certainly be shared. It goes from the historic duplicity of the superpowers (concerned with conserving both their share of the global market and their primacy of nuclear states) to the reticence of the industry's supporters to concede the risks posed by the technology. It then passes through the constant mix of civil necessities and military aims. It involves the inability — or the lack of will — of emerging nations to equip their facilities with security measures to match the degree of the dangers incurred. Few sectors are surrounded by such a mass of ulterior motives and ambiguities. In no other sphere, without question, are these national sovereignty imperatives advanced in such a hypocritical manner, while the possible devastation due to an accident or some criminal use plays itself out on the borders.
Now time presses. In light of another global danger — that of global warming — the question of nuclear energy has regained some of its allure, particularly as the risks of misappropriation grow. In view of the new form that terrorist threats have taken, nothing can ever be unthinkable henceforth, especially the creation of a "dirty bomb" that could sow death and destruction in New York, Moscow or Paris.
In short, the international community must heed the nuclear aspirations of Iran; however, it cannot succeed there without first beginning to thoroughly clean its own stables.
Responsibility in this matter should certainly be shared. It goes from the historic duplicity of the superpowers (concerned with conserving both their share of the global market and their primacy of nuclear states) to the reticence of the industry's supporters to concede the risks posed by the technology. It then passes through the constant mix of civil necessities and military aims. It involves the inability — or the lack of will — of emerging nations to equip their facilities with security measures to match the degree of the dangers incurred. Few sectors are surrounded by such a mass of ulterior motives and ambiguities. In no other sphere, without question, are these national sovereignty imperatives advanced in such a hypocritical manner, while the possible devastation due to an accident or some criminal use plays itself out on the borders.
Now time presses. In light of another global danger — that of global warming — the question of nuclear energy has regained some of its allure, particularly as the risks of misappropriation grow. In view of the new form that terrorist threats have taken, nothing can ever be unthinkable henceforth, especially the creation of a "dirty bomb" that could sow death and destruction in New York, Moscow or Paris.
In short, the international community must heed the nuclear aspirations of Iran; however, it cannot succeed there without first beginning to thoroughly clean its own stables.