[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061210/...summit_nuclear
Is this good or bad?
[/ QUOTE ]
Bad. A broader-based program (including Iran) that we can rely on to really focus on peaceful purposes would be great. But this just looks like an effort to form a nuclear counterweight to Iran, which is just going to encourage everyone to further develop nuclear weapon technology.
[/ QUOTE ]
You mean bad because this may very well help to elevate a significant part of the third world to a level where the west will be unable to [censored] with them anymore right?
Everyone should have the right to nuclear technology. Just like everyone has the right to automobiles, or the internet.
[/ QUOTE ]
These nations are currently getting ~$60/barrel of oil from the West, do you care to explain how exactly we are [censored] with them? The evil West could easily take over their oil fields and do whatever they so choose with them and do whatever they like with the indigenous populations. Our morality prevents this. Your assertion is baseless and as such has no bearing on whether these countries should be allowed to go nuclear. The repercussions of fiefdoms and/or religious zealots having nuclear technology is the relevant issue.
[/ QUOTE ]
The only real asset of the gulf is their oil. If they modernized and became a productive industrial nation then perhaps they would A) use more of their oil for themselves B) have a much more stable nation made up of citizens with high rates of literacy and power
Nuclear power is a tool with unimaginable potential. Electric power could launch these third world nations into the modern age.
As an aside, how long do you think nuclear weapons will remain solely in the hands of the 11 or so nations that have them? 20 years? 50? 100? 300? It seems inevitable that this technology will be realized by everyone on planet earth eventually.
How long do you think that religion will be around for? How about dictatorships? It seems that these have been around since the beginning of time.
As mentioned above, it is unsustainable to keep this technology out of the third world's hands. Further more it is down right immoral. How can it be moral to ensure that a nation and its people will never live at the standard of living Americans and the west enjoy by keeping revolutionary technology out of their hands?
Imagine if the UK banned all other nations from having trains after they made them. Where would the US be today? Most likely in a position similar to the third world.