The Bush administration is planning the government's first production of plutonium 238 since the cold war, stirring debate over the risks and benefits of the deadly material. The substance, valued as a power source, is so radioactive that a speck can cause cancer - according to the New York Times.
The article goes on to say that this will be produced for "secret missions"... "Even if no formal plans now exist to use the plutonium in space for military purposes, these experts said that the material could be used by the military to power compact spy satellites that would be hard for adversaries to track, evade or destroy."
This must be weighed up alongside the outcry of concern that has greeted the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the next Iranian president and the fears that Iran may proceed with its nuclear programme.
The proliferation of nuclear weapons is one of the greatest threats to the human race, let alone our present society. The problem is that none of the major nuclear powers are prepared to take a lead on reducing the threat. So with one hand the Bush administration will threaten Iran with violence to prevent the development of nuclear technology, yet with the other it will manufacture the most dangerous nuclear substance for itself.
This of course comes close on the heals of the failure of the Non Proliferation Treaty in May to make any progress; indeed whilst the NPT was underway the US administration sought increased funds from Congress for research into a new wave of nuclear weapons called bunker busters.
The solution to Iran's nuclear developments cannot be military. It is a false premise to believe that nuclear technology can be kept in limited hands by military force. A strike on the Iranian nuclear facility might kill thousands of people through the spread of nuclear fallout. It would bring one step nearer the use of nuclear materials in a terrorist strike. It would mean the next development would be more secret.
The ultimate solution is for the most powerful Nuclear Weapons States to show true leadership and develop an evenhanded approach to world affairs and to support the reforms of collective security being proposed in the United Nations.
Comments