The article “Nuclear Proliferation” made numerous references to the risks of “non-state actors” obtaining nuclear weapons. This is a blatant scare-tactic that has been used for years. A major selling point for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was that it was a nuclear state and Saddam Hussein was a supporter of terrorism (despite the fact that neither of these were actually true.) The administration’s propaganda played off the fear that Iraq’s WMDs would “fall into the hands of terrorists.” Language like this makes it seem easy, when the fact is, there are incredible safeguards surrounding the purchase of nuclear materials. If you are not a national government, a university, or a nuclear research facility, it is incredibly difficult to obtain nuclear material, even if you have the money. No matter how well-funded a terrorist organization was, the chances that they would be able to obtain all of the materials (and the correct quantities) to create a nuclear weapon, as well as find a radical nuclear physicist who would be willing to work for them, are slim to none. The best chance a terrorist organization would have to obtain nuclear weapons/materials is through a country that sponsors terrorism — this would never happen. Any country that aided a terrorist organization to that extreme would make themselves a target for retaliation, possibly of the nuclear variety. Consider Pakistan: it is a well-known fact that the ISI funded the Taliban in Afghanistan at least until December 2008, and they very well may be doing so today. But they will NEVER give the Taliban access to their nuclear arsenal. To do so would securing their own destruction.

No less important is the affect nuclear proliferation would have on future nuclear energy technology. Although in a perfect world, one could exist without the other, the fact is that it is incredibly difficult to police nuclear weapons without stepping on the toes of peaceful nuclear energy. As is the case in Iran today, facilities which they claim are for peaceful purposes, others claim are being used for the creation of weapons — it is Iran’s word against that of the rest of the world. As we have not found a happy medium between their right to develop peaceful nuclear technology and preventing them from obtaining nuclear weaponry, how does one propose to do this with every country in the world?

In response to Kelly’s comment: it’s true, smallpox and the plague have been eradicated — they were also not man-made. There are still man-made substances that pose a great risk of bioterrorism in the future. And, knowing fashion, don’t discount parachute pants just yet. They could still make a comeback.

Nuclear powerhouses like America and Russia will not disarm until those we see as the biggest threats do — mainly, Iran and North Korea. North Korea borders a nuclear China and Russia. Iran sees threats from every direction: nuclear Pakistan and India to the south, nuclear Turkey to the west, and America in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran will not disarm while Israel still has nuclear weaponry, and Israel will not disarm as long as they are still receiving open threats of destruction from their fellow Middle Eastern countries. The chance of the big five countries of the NPT disarming while these countries still maintain an arsenal is nonexistent.

I have been to Hiroshima. I’ve seen what nuclear bombs did to that city. I would love to see a world without nuclear weapons, but I’m a also a realist.

Many bad things have been eradicated: smallpox, the plague, parachute pants. The assumption that human knowledge cannot transcend its own prior accomplishments seems to undermine what you are saying. If we are smart enough to make nukes, we are smart enough to get rid of them.

Humans have already figured out how to make nuclear weapons, and that knowledge will never go away. As horrific as nuclear weapons may be, we can’t eliminate the information and the human desire for the power they hold.

I will be devastated if the United States detonates a nuclear weapons in my lifetime, but I would sure feel a hell of a lot less safe if we eliminate our arsenal altogether.