Nuclear technology started with a bang. A ton of scientists were working amidst the existential dread of WWII to make it happen. They even had to take an ethics test (which you can take here; thanks to i09 for the tip-off).
Afterward, we had decades in which to experience the constant threat of nuclear annihilation.
The following video by Isao Hashimoto depicts all the nuclear explosions between 1945 and 1998 (thanks, Chris Blattman). This ought to give you a sense of the degree to which the major powers were committed to maintaining nuclear arsenals.
By the time I graduated from high school, the U.S.S.R. was falling apart. Those of us in the West celebrated a sort of victory. The constant threat of nuclear war dissipated.
Not So Fast
But in the long view, it’s hard to be sure there won’t be another nuclear attack of some kind.
Sure, the technology is very expensive and requires herculean infrastructure to develop, but I’m not quick to dismiss the threat. Newer technologies drive both the price and difficulty of many complex endeavors downward.
Even if such a catastrophe weren’t to happen in my lifetime, what about the next 100 years? 200? Is it really so implausible?
This is why the Nuclear Security Project is around. Here’s the introduction to “Nuclear Tipping Point,” a free DVD you can buy that educates the viewer about this threat.
I made the mistake of reading a few of the YouTube comments. I should have known better.
One comment that stuck out to me was “too little too late.” As though the creation of these things negates the need to attempt to reign in their destructive capacity.
It’s irresponsible and defeatist. We may be unable to put the genie back in the bottle, but throwing up our hands isn’t about to help matters.
Nukes as an Insurance Plan
As StratFor has often noted, when states pursue nuclear weapons technology, it’s about acquiring either of two things:
- A bargaining chip to trade for political accommodations, and
- Security against potential invasion.
Iran and North Korea may want to build the things, but that’s mainly due to their pariah status in the American-led trade network. Neither regime thinks it would survive an actual nuclear exchange.
Nuclear arms are better understood as an insurance policy, one that no potential aggressor has any intention of steering afoul of. Without practical military or political use, they remain held in reserve — where in all likelihood they will remain for the foreseeable future. (Hughes)
But this makes nonproliferation efforts more – not less – important.
The wider the technology is spread and the more refinements that develop, the greater the odds that a non-state entity will make us all regret the development of the A-bomb.
Creative Commons image by euthman (at Flickr)
