Reflection Seven

This week we are talking about nuclear technology and the inequality between countries with and without this technology. The use of nuclear energy as well as weapons contributes to this discussion. There are a couple points which jump out at me, one of them being that countries without nuclear capabilities see attaining the technology as a matter of respect and part of joining the First World. The second point of interest is that nuclear weapons follow nuclear energy, such as in Iran when the United States gave them the energy technology and they proceded to adapt the technology.

To begin with, I am unsure as to why nuclear weaponry is so highly valued, my reasoning being that any country or entity that utilizes this weaponry, with the possible but unlikely exception of the United States and certain countries in Europe, will immediately be outcast by many governments in the rest of the world and likely dealt far more damage than they would be able to accomplish themselves. We are at something of a nuclear stalemate, while there are problems with an actual treaty being drawn up and agreed upon by the nations of the world, I do not see circumstances where a country or group would be able to use these weapons without terrible consequences. In my mind this makes nuclear weaponry somewhat irrelevant, and shifts the focus to the use of nuclear energy. I think that while nuclear waste is a problem, for developing countries a greater problem might be the current complications with oil, as well as the use of coal. I do not have any exact statistics, but barrels of waste are something that we can store until a method for disposal or even some sort of recycling/usage with other products is discovered. Compared to the alternative of coal, which is directly contributing to global warming and the greenhouse effect as it is used, I think there are merits for establishing nuclear energy within developing countries. I think Third World countries could be better off currently by not having to deal with the economically complicated oil.

The author talks about peace education. I find this very interesting, and am disappointed to reflect upon my own schooling and find a distinct lack of this form of education. Perhaps if nuclear energy could be given to countries along with some sort of stipulation and curriculum for mandatory peace education. As with many things, I feel that education is the answer here, if we are able to simultaneously bring countries into the First World with nuclear power, as well as help to educate and reduce physical conflict, perhaps we would be able to grant nuclear energy and halt the desire to create weapons of mass destruction simultaneously. I am not sure of the feasibility of such a plan, however I think it all comes back to education. If we invest in the education of other countries, perhaps we do not need to directly give them nuclear technology, rather the means to understand how to do it themselves.