More nations to be Nuclear-capable

“The head of the U.N. nuclear agency warned Monday that as many as 30 countries could soon have technology that would let them produce atomic weapons “in a very short time,” joining the nine states known or suspected to have such arms.”

This is something that has bothered me for years. Today is Iran, Pakistan and North Korea, in a few years it could even be… Nigeria. You can’t stop all these countries from moving forward technologically and you might not be able to stop them in the event they are lead by a crazy dictator who wants to take over the world. This is why UN must have more power, so countries feel more comfortable in the world political and financial scene. If it’s only USA, UK, France and Russia with all the arms that take all the decisions with UN having a mostly decorative role, then they get defensive. You can’t always avoid the worst, but you might be able to soothe it — or delay it.

Post a comment »

Andrew wrote on October 17th, 2006 at 10:23 AM PST:

Or the NATO countries could adopt an isolationist policy and countries could quit enabling dictatorships (re: Made in China).

Just as effective and far more likely –though unlikely–

The United Nations is/was destined to fail. While I understand the idealism, it’s simply too much too soon. That doesn’t mean we should be running around blowing each other up.

If the goal is an eventual democratic world government, then we should concentrate on our own backyards ;) with organizations like the European Union, the African Union, etc. baby-steps.

Right now that seems really unlikely though. The Europeans couldn’t even agree on a constitution.

Comments are closed as this blog post is now archived.

Lines, paragraphs break automatically. HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

The URI to TrackBack this blog entry is this. And here is the RSS 2.0 for comments on this post.