Saddam Hussein, it turns out, got his revenge on the U.S. in the end. When the United States and our allies in the Iraq War could not produce the Weapons of Mass Destruction that we claimed were in Iraq, something happened around the world that would leave it's imprint to this day. The world became far more sceptical of foreign intelligence by anyone, but particularly any by the U.S. or Britain. All and all, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Before we go jumping into War we should be 100% sure (or damn near it) that our reasons are just and accurate. But having said that, I would also warn people not to go too far the other way. Just because our intelligence isn't always accurate doesn't mean it's always wrong either. I would equate that logic to releasing all criminals because we discovered that some of them were innocent. With that in mind, I want to take a look at the dangers we all face in this "War on Terror" and help you decide if any of this should be feared or if it's all the result of propaganda by people with other agendas. First on my list of things to consider is a Pakistani scientist by the name of A. Q. Kahn.Abdul Qadeer Kahn was born April 1, 1936 into a middle-class Mohajir/Pashtun Muslim family which migrated from British India to Pakistan in 1952. He obtained the degree of Bachelor of Science in 1960 from the University of Karachi, majoring in physical metallurgy. He then obtained the degree of Master of Science (Technology) in 1967 from Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands, and a Doctor of Engineering degree in metallurgical engineering from the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium in 1972. Dr. Kahn then spent several years working on enriching uranium for the Netherlands. The Netherlands (home of Liberal thought) then supplied enriched uranium for the ill-fated idea of spreading nuclear energy to countries around the world. Every since Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower started his "Atoms for Peace" project, the world had, (for some stupid reason) begun educating less advanced countries on how to start their own nuclear ambitions. That spreading this uranium around the world along with enrichment procedures may cause some problems in the future apparently never even occurred to them. Once educated, Dr. Kahn left the Netherlands to return to Pakistan (along with his new-found knowledge) with the goal of creating nuclear weapons for Muslim countries. Starting with Pakistan.
At this point I would like to address the idea that we have nuclear weapons, so who are we to tell other countries that they can not have them. This, to me, is like saying, "What's the difference between giving Gandhi an automatic weapon and giving one to Charles Manson?" Honestly, this is one of the dumbest (and I don't use that word often) arguments I have ever heard. If your a person who believes in back-ground checks for buying guns I'm not sure how you could open your mouth and let something so mindless fall out. Certainly there is a difference in who has a weapon. Sheesh. Now back to the point.
Every since India (Pakistan's Nemesis) announced in 1974 that it had created a nuclear weapon, Pakistan had been trying to create one of it's own. Now, with the knowledge supplied by A. Q. Kahn, Pakistan began it's clandestine nuclear weapons project. After denying for years that it even had a program (Gee, that sounds familiar), in 1987 Kahn announced in a British newspaper that Pakistan had indeed created a nuclear weapon. That Pakistan now has several nuclear weapons is no longer even disputed. More disturbing to the world than this revelation was the fact that it appears A.Q. Kahn had set up a network with Libya, Iran, and North Korea to help them with their nuclear ambitions too. Even Time magazine (not exactly a right-wing publication) ran a cover article calling Kahn a "The Merchant of Menace" detailing his involvement in providing Muslim nations with nuclear technology.
The purpose of me pointing out all this to you is this; With the recent report released by the NIE that Iran had stopped it's Nuclear weapons program back in 2003 (which, by the way it denied it ever had). There has been a rash of reporting designed to further embarrass the Bush Administration and halt our pressures on Iran. While I have no problem with embarrassing Bush, we should be very careful not to confuse this report with thinking that there is no problem or danger out there. We didn't know about A.Q. Kahn or his nuclear adventurism until it was too late. For us to assume that we now know everything that is going on and that there is no danger or clandestine efforts out there is very naive. Nuclear proliferation is going on and with the advent of the Internet it's getting worse. I hate to say it, but I think the world needs to see a nuclear weapon go off to finally come to grips with the danger that we do face. That politicians exaggerate and use fear as a tool to control or manipulate is irrefutable. But please don't ever start thinking that it's all smoke and mirrors. The danger is real and there are more A.Q. Kahns out there that we don't know about yet. I would hate to have a mushroom cloud be our day of awakening and our reaction be one of passion and not logic. The best defense we have is for us to accept that it will happen and to have our reaction well thought out in advance. H.C.
4 comments:
Fear mongering? Dude, you should run for office. *Joking* Sheesh.
At any rate, to address your points:
"At this point I would like to address the idea that we have nuclear weapons, so who are we to tell other countries that they can not have them. This, to me, is like saying, "What's the difference between giving Gandhi an automatic weapon and giving one to Charles Manson?" Honestly, this is one of the dumbest (and I don't use that word often) arguments I have ever heard."
I get where you're going with this from a theoretical perspective. Still, the very existence of nuclear weapons suggests an intent (whether desired or not) to use them. Otherwise, why have them? So it's the intent to use them as an option -- from a nation supposedly committed to peace -- that makes U.S. ownership of nuclear weapons hypocritical and; frankly; the very impetus for everybody else to have 'em too. Ghandi, the peacemaker he was, wouldn't go around packin' heat if his message was about peace and nonviolence. Sorry.
Now, on to Mr. A.Q.: I peeped this dude out before; and he means business. I've always maintained that Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan were the least of our problems. Pakistan is -- and has always been -- the sleeper in this conflict with the Middle East. Not only does his vast intelligence make him a prime candidate for engineering his nation's nuclear program, but his savvy and relations with neighboring regions makes him a huge threat to this new aged arms race. I mean, the dude even went on record acknowledging that he sold different technologies to countries like Iran and N. Korea. Though the Pakistani government insists that these negotiations were done without their approval, I'm not so sure they were.
These guys came to play.
Hey Dre,
"Still, the very existence of nuclear weapons suggests an intent (whether desired or not) to use them."
There is still the argument of them being a "nuclear deterent". The idea there being that if someone has the ultimate weapon, there would be less, not more violence based on the thinking that since the consequences of an escalating conflict are too terrible to be risked,there is less risk of a confrontation at all. I would equate it to a criminal being less likely to chose a victim that he knows is carrying a gun. Since the intent is not to use them but rather to scare with them, there is a argument for possessing them without aggression. (A debatable argument I admit) The problem I have with other countries having them is that some of them do not have a history of instability thereby increasing the likelyhood of them falling into the wrong hands. (Wasn't the Soviet Union's collapse scary enough?) No one having them is the best answer, but I don't think that's possible. What is possible is trying to restict them as much as we (the world community) can. As far as fearmongering (I know you were only joking), I wish I could say I was. This subject actually haunts my dreams. I'm so sorry to say Dre, the clock is ticking and I believe with all my heart that it's inevitable. A nuclear weapon WILL go off soon and it's the world's response that scares me more than anything. Isreal WILL NOT leave with her arsenal, of that, I am certain. And that's only one nightmare scenario. What I want is for the people to decide in advance how they feel we should respond instead of leaving it to people with deep shelters. We can't do that by pretending the threat is imaginary. (Sorry to be so dark).
4 Real
@Dre -That one part should be,"some of them HAVE a history of instability thereby increasing the likelyhood of them falling into the wrong hands."
Post a Comment