Perhaps the concern is that these weapons may get "loose" and be used by mysterious terrorists who "hate our freedoms". However, trying to get a decent-sized nuke into, say, the US would be almost impossible. I sincerely doubt (or, at least, I sincerely hope) that the US would be incapable of deflecting any nuclear-armed missile heading towards their country. Which leaves the so-called "suitcase bomb" that, unfortunately, is not capable of carrying much nuclear material at all. (Enriched uranium is just heavy. It's heavier than lead. Could you carry a suitcase even half-full of lead?) So, we're talking about a weapon that would likely be less effective, in terms of loss of life and property damage, than a standard pipe bomb. So, really, what's the problem supposed to be?
Monday, July 31, 2006
According to this, Iran has refused to stop enriching uranium. I'm not surprised, really; nor do I think this is as bad a thing as it seems. If the uranium is for nuclear fuel, then why shouldn't they enrich it? Does Iran not deserve fission reactors to provide power? If the uranium is for nuclear weapons, why shouldn't they have them? The chances of the Iranian government being suicidal enough to use a nuclear weapon are minute. Moreover, there's a clear hypocrisy here. Israel is rumoured to have nuclear weapons. The US has thousands of them. And many of the Soviet nuclear weapons are unaccounted for. Why Iran's as yet nascent program is such a huge concern is a mystery to me. Indeed, North Korea has already test-fired missiles, which suggests that they would be more capable of using nuclear weapons.