Dr. Strangelove or How I stopped worrying and learned to love the BOMB

Résumé du document

The nuclear proliferation is associated with the spread of nuclear weapons, fissile material, and weapon-applicable nuclear technology and information, to nations, that are not recognized as 'nuclear weapon States' by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Indeed, with the end of the Cold war, the threat of a nuclear conflict has not vanished. On the contrary, the 21st century seems an even more dangerous, because it will be a less predictable era. The global stockpile of nuclear weapons has reduced, but the chance that someone, somewhere might detonate a bomb is higher. In addition to that, more and more countries, and probably terrorist groups are eager to develop a nuclear capacity.

Extraits

[...] Strangelove or How I stopped worrying and learned to love the BOMB The nuclear proliferation is associated with the spread of nuclear weapons, fissile material, and weapons-applicable nuclear technology and information, to nations, that are not recognized as "nuclear weapon States" by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Indeed, with the end of the Cold war the threat of a nuclear conflict has not vanished. On the contrary, the 21st century seems an even more dangerous, because it will be a less predictable place. [...]

[...] This declaration was followed by new talks, involving North Korea, South Korea, the USA, Japan, Russia and China. North Korea abruptly broke them angry after their bank accounts were frozen under American pressure at a Macau bank. An agreement was reached on February 2007 in Beijing. It declared that North Korea would close its nuclear plants within 60 days in return of aid and other inducement. This agreement shows that what is at the core of the North Korea is money and aid. [...]

[...] It is the only mean to prevent the attacks of hostile governments from launching a huge attack. The nuclear proliferation is a reality. More and more countries have developed nuclear weapons and efficient carriers. All these countries are not democratic, some are even very bellicose. Unfortunately, the only way to protect our countries is to own the supreme weapon. We can dream of a global disarmament. But I think it will remain a dream until the end of mankind. [...]

[...] For instance Mr Bush “suggested that the NSG should refuse all nuclear trade with countries that have not accepted the IAEA's Additional Protocol”. This protocol was agreed by the IAEA Board of Governors in 1997 and boosted the IAEA's ability to detect undeclared nuclear activities, including those with no connection to the civil fuel cycle. But all the American or European fine words will not make any difference if they do not pioneer a real nuclear disarmament. The American bad example five countries officially recognised as having nuclear weapons are all committed to giving them But they do not. [...]

[...] Do we still need a nuclear armament? Today, with the end of the Cold war the threats are no longer the same. A columnist of the Economist (Keep on cutting, December 9th 2006) asserted that “America's nuclear weapons did not deter al-Qaeda on September 11th 2001, and Britain's will not deter atrocities like the 2005 bombing of the London underground. Why than hang on to weapons that anyway haven't been used in 60 years? One answer is that Britain's nuclear weapons are not meant to deter terrorists.” Actually, the nuclear weapons are not expensive toys designed to deal with outdated threats. [...]