Nukes

The UK recently announced that it would be creating many more nuclear power plants in their country.

"The government is keen to see at least 10 nuclear reactors starting operations around 2020, as existing installations reach the end of their lives, with more to follow."
Article

We really made a big deal about Iran trying to get nuclear technology, and all the while Iran claimed, and still claims, that it is for power only. I wouldn't be surprised if most of America thinks that Iran is sitting there with tons of nukes and their finger on the button. The truth is that Iran halted their nuclear program (weapons supposedly) in 2003, and the intelligence tells us that they are confident it had not continued as of mid-2007.

I wonder how they know it was a 'weapons' program, and I think an even better question is ' what does it take, and how long does it take, to turn a nuclear power system into a nuclear missile?'

Here are some interesting sources I have come across.
List of countries with nuclear weapons.

List of countries with nuclear power.

I count 9 countries with weapons, and 36 with power. One of my most appalling discoveries was Israel's situation.

" Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Poliferation Agreement and refuses to officially confirm or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or having developed nuclear weapons, or even having a nuclear weapons program. Israel has pledged not to be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the region, but is also pursuing a policy of strategic ambiguity with regard to their possession. In the late 1960s, Israeli Ambassador to the US Yitzhak Rabin informed the United States State Department, that its understanding of "introducing" such weapons meant that they would be tested and publicly declared, while merely possessing the weapons did not constitute "introducing" them. Although Israel claims that the Negev Nuclear Research Center near Dimona is a "research reactor", or, as was originally claimed, a "textile factory," no scientific reports based on work done there have ever been published. Extensive information about the program in Dimona was also disclosed by technician Mordechai Vanunu in 1986."

Currently we know that Israel has around 75-200 weapons, according to satellite images, etc.
The U.S. has long supported Israel, and many people can agree that this is one of the major reasons why we have such trouble in the middle east.

So which sounds like more of a threat? A country with no current nuclear program that claims it was only trying to us it for power, or a country who won't sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, constantly denies having any nuclear program, and yet we are 100% certain that they not only have one, but have already developed the weapons. Not to mention their promise not to do so in the first place. So what do we do? We attack a man we put in power who we thought had weapons but didn't (Saddam) and then people like John McCain ("Bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran") and George W. Bush turn to Iran, which has no current program as far as we know. All the while staying allied to a country that secretly holds tons of nukes and refuses to admit it or sign itself under any control. Something just seems wrong with that, in my opinion.

There are two counter arguments.
1. Israel is our ally, so they can do whatever they want.
2. Dictators like Saddam and Ahmadinejad are more dangerous with nukes than countries not run by dictators.

My Answers.
1. The U.S. has very seriously seemed to take exactly this position, and has held it for a very long time. This is one reason why most of the middle east does not think highly of the U.S.. When we do things like support Saudi Arabia because they have the oil, but then criticize their neighbors for stuff like women's rights, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia has the same position as their neighbors, we look like our interest really isn't women's rights, but oil. (I don't pretend to know what the women's rights situation in these countries is, its just an example, but I believe some aspects are universal in the middle eastern countries) Is this the right thing for the U.S. to do? Not in my opinion. We should not be allies with people that simply agree not to attack us, but instead should be allies with nations that have the same ideals as us. (And lets not forget that, "If you aren't with us your against us," should never be true in this respect.) Sadly, I think its possible that the U.S. is already taking my suggestion to heart, but instead of deciding to pick our allies based on moral and ethical ideals, we choose them based on economic ideals (oil, etc.) However the U.S. tries to make it appear that they are doing the former. We invaded Iraq to bring democracy to the country, ummm, right? Only......weren't we also the ones who put Saddam the dictator there in the first place, and then turned our backs while he killed his own people? That brings me to argument 2's reply.

2. Lets first set the records straight, because I think a lot of people agree with this argument, but I am aim to prove that they are terribly misguided. For one thing, as I said before Saddam was placed by the U.S. as a DICTATOR, yes a dictator. Isn't the U.S. supposed to spread democracy or something? At least the country somehow believes that is it's manifest destiny. So what is the U.S. doing putting a dictator in power? It's pretty simple; the people of Iraq weren't too crazy about the U.S., but the U.S. was in a position to do whatever they wanted with the Iraq government. So instead of creating a democracy that would lead to the will of the people being manifested in the government of Iraq, leading to Iraq not being an ally to us, we decided to put a man we thought we could trust to be our ally in supreme power of the country, allowing him to maintain this alliance to the U.S. despite any objections of the people of Iraq. So, if Saddam, a handpicked (by us) leader of Iraq is dangerous with a nuke, it is our fault. Luckily it turns out that he had no weapons! Imagine if he did and he shot them at the U.S.. How crazy ironic would that be? I guess it was already ironic enough that we lied and said he did, they invaded and killed the man we put in power. Anyway, I still haven't proven that dictators aren't more dangerous than a more democratic nation with nukes.

One hilarious and common mistake people make is thinking that Ahmadinejad is the dictator of Iran. He in fact is the president. Yes, it turns out that Iran is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. Guess who else is? THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Ahmadinejad was chosen by a direct vote of the people. Thats even more democratic than the U.S.. Ahmadinejad is also not even the supreme power in Iran. Iran has both a president and a "Supreme Leader of Iran." (currently Ali Khamenei) This supreme leader is elected in a more American fashion. Not by the people, but by the politicians. Regardless, in the long run Iran seems more democratic than the U.S.. So where do these stories painting Ahmadinejad as a crazy dictator with a finger on the nuke button come from? Hell if I know, but I don't think the MSM is doing much to help the situation.

So these two people that we think are dangerous with nukes, are a dictator we ourselves put into power, and a president of a democracy. Oh, and THEY HAVE NO NUKES! Still, I think this serves an important lesson for us. It doesn't truly matter whether a dictatorship or a democracy has nukes, because no matter what, nukes are dangerous, and even in a democracy, did every eligible American get to vote on whether we should have dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Our president is the one with his finger on the nukes. Our president is the one who goes to war without permission from the American people, or any other bodies in our government. Who sounds more dangerous with nukes now? As long as nuclear weapons remain under the control of single individuals with warped policies and a very opinionated outlook, there will always be a danger.

Notes:
(I know that democracy is not the same as a constitutional republic. This is an important distinction, but I was using democracy in the broader sense of the term. Also, North Korea is another example that could have been used. It IS a dictatorship and it HAS nuclear weapons. However I still think I have at least proven that simply being a dictatorship does not make it more dangerous, it is having the nukes that does. I may touch the topic of North Korea later. I would also like to add that I believe nuclear power is a great source of alternative energy, and every nation should be allowed to use this source, as long as their doors are open to international inspection, not because we should assume they are making weapons, but to ensure the safety of the plant itself.)