Thirty More Countries Could Get Nukes Soon

TrailerCues

Sidekick
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
2,536
Reaction score
0
Points
31
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.

Speaking at a conference on tightening controls against nuclear proliferation, Mohamed ElBaradei said more nations are "hedging their bets" by developing technology that is at the core of peaceful nuclear energy programs but could quickly be switched to making weapons.

ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, called them "virtual new weapons states."
The warning came amid heightened fears that North Korea's nuclear test

explosion and Iran's defiance of a U.N. Security Council demand that it suspend uranium enrichment could spark a new arms race, particularly among Asian and Middle Eastern states that feel threatened.

ElBaradei did not single out any country in his warning, but was clearly alluding to Iran and other nations that are working to develop uranium enrichment capability, such as Brazil.

Other nations, including Australia, Argentina and South Africa, have recently announced that they are considering developing enrichment programs to be able to sell fuel to states that want to generate electricity with nuclear reactors.

Canada, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland, Taiwan, Spain, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Lithuania are among nations that either have the means to produce weapons-grade uranium if they chose, could quickly build such technology, or could use plutonium waste for weaponization.

All are committed non-nuclear weapons states, and no one has suggested they want to use their programs for arms.

Japan also says it has no plans to develop atomic weapons, but it could make them at short notice by processing tons of plutonium left over from running its nuclear reactors.

South Korea also has spent reactor fuel and was found a few years ago to have conducted small-scale secret experiments on making highly enriched uranium that would be usable in warheads.

Other countries considering developing nuclear programs in the near future are Egypt, Bangladesh, Ghana, Indonesia, Jordan, Namibia, Moldova, Nigeria, Poland, Thailand, Turkey, Vietnam and Yemen, U.N. officials say.

There are five formally declared nuclear weapons states -- the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain -- and four others are known or thought to have such arms -- India, Pakistan, Israel and now North Korea.

North Korea developed its capacities from what it had portrayed as a peaceful nuclear energy program, and there are widespread suspicions Iran may be trying to obtain arms through its enrichment program, despite

Tehran's insistence it seeks only to produce fuel for reactors to generate electricity.

North Korea's nuclear weapon test a week ago sparked widespread condemnation and led the Security Council to agree on broad sanctions. On Iran, the council plans this week to discuss possible selective penalties for
Tehran ignoring its demand to stop enrichment by Aug. 31.

Much of ElBaradei's comments were directed at the potential for misuse of uranium enrichment, which can generate both low-enriched, reactor-grade uranium and highly enriched material for nuclear bombs.

"The knowledge is out of the tube ... both for peaceful purpose and unfortunately also for not peaceful purposes," ElBaradei said.

"It's becoming fashionable for countries to try to look into possibilities of shielding themselves ... through the possibility of nuclear weapons," he said, adding: "Another 20 or 30 would have the capacity to develop nuclear weapons in a very short time."

Indirectly criticizing nuclear weapons states, ElBaradei said it was illogical for them to maintain their atomic arsenals while urging others not to acquire such arms.

He also obliquely took some of them to task for not signing or ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, suggesting their endorsement of the 1996 pact "would have changed the behavior of North Korea, maybe."

The treaty, which prohibits all nuclear explosions, will not take effect until it has been ratified by 44 states that possess either nuclear reactors for power-generation or research. So far 34 have ratified it. Holdouts include the U.S., China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.

ElBaradei said more money and international commitment are needed for his agency's verification efforts, describing the $120 million annually budgeted as "a drop in the ocean."

"It's important that the system continues to be ahead of the game," he said. "We cannot continue to do business as usual."

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/thirty-more-countries-could-get-nukes/20061016135709990002
 
I wouldn't blame most of the countries on the planet to want to develop nukes in order to protect themselves from the US.
 
Just sign the damn treaty already, you crazy countries! It'll make the world a better place.
 
Chauncey said:
I wouldn't blame most of the countries on the planet to want to develop nukes in order to protect themselves from the US.

All of the countries listed in this article don't even have to worry about an imminent US invasion like Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and Syria.

As a matter in fact those are really the only countries that have legitimate fears of a US invasion.

Please don't be a jourmugand, a poster who just says "the world hates the US" or "all the world's problems are because of the US" or "the US sucks" in nearly every post in threads like these just to simply do some America bashing. It's redundant and annoying.
 
hippie_hunter said:
All of the countries listed in this article don't even have to worry about an imminent US invasion like Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and Syria.

As a matter in fact those are really the only countries that have legitimate fears of a US invasion.

Please don't be a jourmugand, a poster who just says "the world hates the US" or "all the world's problems are because of the US" or "the US sucks" in nearly every post in threads like these just to simply do some America bashing. It's redundant and annoying.
Yet almost entirely accurate. Fact of the matter is that the US doesn't exactly have the best track record when deciding who it's allies are and who it's enemies are. I'm Canadian. I'd hate to see my government act like the rest of the fools on this planet an rush to a Nuclear defense strategy. Not so much because it wouldn't some day be needed, but rather because it's simply ******ed.
 
Chauncey said:
Yet almost entirely accurate. Fact of the matter is that the US doesn't exactly have the best track record when deciding who it's allies are and who it's enemies are. I'm Canadian. I'd hate to see my government act like the rest of the fools on this planet an rush to a Nuclear defense strategy. Not so much because it wouldn't some day be needed, but rather because it's simply ******ed.

I could see Harper cut more programs to develope a nuclear defense.
 
slinger said:
I could see Harper cut more programs to develope a nuclear defense.
So could I. Harper's an *******. I love how he retooled the highschool military co-op program to allow 4 credits (as opposed to the usual 2) and pay. All while hypocritically claiming he's going to crack down on gun violence. Not to mention all the other government programs he's been raping of funds, all while we have a surplus no less.
 
USA should develop a weapon even stronger than nukes and not let anyone know how to make it. let them have their nukes, we'll have the doomsday device!
 
Fred_Fury said:
USA should develop a weapon even stronger than nukes and not let anyone know how to make it. let them have their nukes, we'll have the doomsday device!
:sigh:
 
I'd say 30 countries could get nukes tomorrow if Bush reeeeeally cheesed off the prime minster of Russia.
 
Parker said:
I'd say 30 countries could get nukes tomorrow if Bush reeeeeally cheesed off the prime minster of Russia.
Thirty nations could get nukes tomorrow just based on Bush ordering a halt to the investigation into A.Q. Khan's activities. You see the CIA was following a paper trail in early 2001 which they were ordered to halt when it was discovered that the Saudi Royals were funding Khan's WMD supply market. As a result, both Iran and North Korea were able to purchase materials from him. Hooray!!!:woot:
 
Chauncey said:
Yet almost entirely accurate. Fact of the matter is that the US doesn't exactly have the best track record when deciding who it's allies are and who it's enemies are. I'm Canadian. I'd hate to see my government act like the rest of the fools on this planet an rush to a Nuclear defense strategy. Not so much because it wouldn't some day be needed, but rather because it's simply ******ed.

The United States of today is somewhat better than the United States of the Cold War in picking it's allies. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are better than Zaire and Baathist Iraq. Not much better but still better.

Today we are picking more legitimate allies such as Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltic States, Georgia, Romania, Bulgaria, and others.

Even though we are going through a rough spot with our more traditional allies, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan, Canada and others. Our ties with them are still strong and healthy. They are not on the verge of breaking.

Really the only countries that have legitimate fears of being invaded by the United States at the moment are Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela.

And it is not accurate that the United States is behind most of the world's problems, every nation in the world is responsible for that. Many people just want to use the United States as a scapegoat.
 
Fred_Fury said:
USA should develop a weapon even stronger than nukes and not let anyone know how to make it. let them have their nukes, we'll have the doomsday device!

:whatever:
 
Fred_Fury said:
USA should develop a weapon even stronger than nukes and not let anyone know how to make it. let them have their nukes, we'll have the doomsday device!
dr_strangelove_large_01.jpg
 
Fred_Fury said:
USA should develop a weapon even stronger than nukes and not let anyone know how to make it. let them have their nukes, we'll have the doomsday device!

780px-Mgs2_ray_model.jpg
 
Fred_Fury said:
USA should develop a weapon even stronger than nukes and not let anyone know how to make it. let them have their nukes, we'll have the doomsday device!

If the US couldn't prevent other countries from developing nukes (help Canada had nuclear technology in 1945) how would they prevent other countries from developing a death ray or something, after they manage to build it?
 
The Overlord said:
If the US couldn't prevent other countries from developing nukes (help Canada had nuclear technology in 1945) how would they prevent other countries from developing a death ray or something, after they manage to build it?

Maybe our moon is really a Russian Space Station / Death Star :wow:
 
Thing is you can't use nukes, not against us anyway it's suicide.
One, you couldn't destroy us with just a few bombs, and two no matter who's in office we'd have to strike back likewise or our nukes lose their deterent value. Nukes are a waste of time and money, as is trying to match the power of the US.
 
hippie_hunter said:
All of the countries listed in this article don't even have to worry about an imminent US invasion like Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and Syria.

As a matter in fact those are really the only countries that have legitimate fears of a US invasion.

Please don't be a jourmugand, a poster who just says "the world hates the US" or "all the world's problems are because of the US" or "the US sucks" in nearly every post in threads like these just to simply do some America bashing. It's redundant and annoying.

thanks. I felt the same way. there is constructive argument to be had about our foreign policy, but that guy's post simply made me angry. Yes LIberals oppose war. as part of our liberal ideology I believe it helps not to simply bash other countries. Liberals are supposed to reach out to countries they feel are dangerous rather than give into hatred for them. Because hating them only makes them hate you right back;)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"